Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/35/2016

Vansh Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.M.J.S.Bedi, Adv.

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	35 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.03.2016

 

Vansh Malhotra son of Naveen Malhotra, resident of House No.426/12, Ashoka Garden Colony, Kaithal, Haryana. Now residing in House No. 449, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

[1]  Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Limited, 1st Floor, Plot No.15, Sector 32, Gurgaon – 122001 Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

[2]  Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Limited, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana – 136027, through its General Manager.

[3]  Padam Motors Pvt. Limited, 182/1 (In fact 182/2 in complaint), Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its General Manager.

[4]  Dynamic Motors, RSA Motors Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 2 & 5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002 through its General Manager.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

 

Sh. M.J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant alongwith Sh. Vansh Malhotra (Advocate) appellant in person.

Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

              This appeal has been filed by the complainant (now appellant), against the order dated 03.11.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.214 of 2015 was dismissed.

2.             The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Chevrolet Sail Sedan on 03.04.2013 from Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure P-1. It was stated that right from day one, warring yellow ignition light indication of the car was ‘on’. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 failed to fix the same, despite 40-50 visits by the complainant (Annexure P-2 colly). It was further stated that the said problem was tracked after 7 months, whereafter the same was fixed. It was further stated that since there was a problem in the whole lot of the model of the car in question, Opposite Party No.2 replaced the main hub bolt and kit engine part of the car on 06.09.2013 (Annexure P-3). It was further stated that thereafter, due to problems in door panel, Opposite Party No.3 replaced the Weather Stip part and Cable ASM mode of the doors on 10.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). It was further stated that after few months, on account of ABS Sensor and Car Turbo Pick up, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 but it took 4-5 months to fix that problem and, ultimately, changed the whole wiring of the car (Annexure P-5 colly). It was further stated that thereafter, on 08.03.2015, the complainant had to leave his car with Opposite Party No.3 due to major problem therein, which was returned by it on 12.03.2015, after getting the problem fixed (Annexure P-6 colly). It was further stated that on 23.09.2014, when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 for service, the concerned representative had intimated that from now onwards the complainant had to get service done after every 7500 Kms instead of 15000 Kms and a new chart was also pasted in his Owner’s Manual (Annexures P-7 & P-8). It was further stated that after driving the car for 3-4 days, when the complainant again faced the similar problems, he got served a legal notice dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure P-8) upon the Opposite Parties, but nothing was done to redress his grievance. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.             When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to replace the old car as soon as possible and handover the replaced car to the complainant; pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment besides Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, stated that its liability was strictly in accordance with the warranty agreement of the vehicle in question (Annexure OP1/1). It was stated that all the works were carried out under the warranty without charging even a single penny from the complainant. It was further stated that the Centralized Vehicle History of the vehicle had been annexed as Annexure OP1/2. It was further stated that all the problems were either running repairs or general in nature and were, thus, carried out under warranty. It was further stated that there was no problem in the vehicle, in question, and all the problems were illusionary and based on presumption of the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement denied that the vehicle faced any problem on the first day of the purchase and that the complainant had approached Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 more than 40-50 times. It was stated that the vehicle of the complainant had no problem in respect of the main hub bolt, which was changed on the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 under a special campaign moved by it (OP No.1). It was further stated that the problem of door noise, reported on 10.05.2014, was set right by replacing the worn out weather strip under warranty, without charging any money from the complainant. It was further stated that the problem with regard to ABS Sensor which was pointed out by the complainant on 19.09.2014 and 13.10.2014, was fixed by replacing the ABS Sensors. It was further stated that the wiring of the vehicle was replaced just to keep the vehicle defect free. It was denied that there was any major defect in the vehicle of the complainant on 08.03.2015. It was further stated that one of the sensor of the vehicle was found defective and the same was to be replaced. It was further stated that the delay in delivery of the vehicle was due to the reason that the defective part was requisitioned from the manufacturer. It was admitted that on 23.09.2014, when the complainant approached the answering Opposite Party for service, he was informed that as per new service schedule, the service of the vehicle had to be done up to 7500 Kms. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.             Opposite Party No.4, in its written statement that the complaint was not maintainable qua it as neither the vehicle, in question, was purchased from it nor the complainant brought the same for repair to it except for 02.07.2013 with complaint of yellow light on 03.10.2013, when he had approached for second free service and on 07.03.2014 when he approached for paid service. It was further stated that on said visits, his vehicle was attended to his satisfaction. It was further stated that the defects so pointed out were mended with minor adjustments and only jobs which were scheduled under the service were conducted on the vehicle (Vehicle history Annexure R-4/2). It was further stated that the complainant did not allege any specific allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the answering Opposite Party in his entire complaint. It was further stated that the complainant had always visited Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and his grouse was only against the said Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.4, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7.             Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide order dated 19.05.2015.

8.             The complainant filed separate replications wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statements of Opposite Parties No.1, 3 and 4.

9.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

10.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

11.           Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

12.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

13.           It is evident on record that the appellant purchased a Chevrolet Sail Sedan from respondent/Opposite Party No.2 on 3.4.2013 for Rs.6,94,907/- (Annexure P-1). It is also evident that the car, in question, within a short period of its purchase started suffering from one or the other defect. Since the vehicle was under warranty, respondents No.2, 3 and 4 rectified the same, free of cost. The defects erupted and rectified were:-

-       Warring yellow ignition light indication of car was on from day one. Despite number of visits by the appellant, Opposite Parties could track the problem after 7 months.

-       On 06.09.2013, Opposite Party No.2 replaced the main hub & bolt and kit engine part of the car (Annexure P-3).

-       Problems in door panel, were rectified by replacing Weather Strip part and Cable ASM Mode Cont. of door on 10.05.2014 (Annexure P-4).

-       It took 4-5 months to rectify ABS Sensor and Car Turbo Pick up problem by Opposite Party No.3 and defects could be rectified by changing whole wiring of the car (Annexure P-5 Colly.).

-       Again when there were problems regarding “All Door Noise & FRS Doorclass Hard, CHK ABS Light, CHK Service Light, Engine Oil & Oil Filter” in the vehicle, the appellant had to leave his car with Opposite Party No.3. No doubt problem was rectified but it took 4-5 days (Annexure P-6 Colly.).

14.           The respondents/Opposite Parties have stated that they discharged their liability, by rectifying the defects without charging even a single penny. They further averred that problems emanated either on account of running repairs or were general in nature and the same were carried out under warranty. Opposite Party No.3 in Para 3 of preliminary objections of its written statement dated 10.06.2015 has stated that vehicle had run 62042 KMs as noted on the last date of visit and by now, the vehicle has run 70,000 KMs approximately. The correctness of these averments has not been disputed by the appellant.

15.           The above sequence of events clearly indicates that the vehicle had problems frequently. Since the appellant was forced to take the newly purchased car to the respondents/Opposite Parties time and again and had to remain without car, as and when, the repairs were undertaken, it definitely caused him lot of physical harassment and mental agony. A person purchases a new car under the genuine hope and belief that for initial period of 2-3 years, there would not be any occasion for repairs but the same did not prove true. It meant that there were defects in the car necessitating repairs. It is not the case of the respondents/Opposite Parties that these problems occurred due to improper handling/usage of the car by the appellant/complainant. Since the repairs have been carried out by the Opposite Parties without charging any amount, the vehicle being under warranty, coupled with the fact that the vehicle has covered 70,000 KMs during a period of less than three years, in our considered opinion, no case is made out for replacement of the car, in question.

16.           In the facts and circumstances of the case, a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) on account of physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses, shall meet the ends of justice.

17.           No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

18.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is partly accepted. The respondents/Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment & litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be payable by the respondents/Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

19.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

March      ,2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER