Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/43/2020

Vishal Nehra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Frontier Auto World Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Kumar Sanwal

25 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.      

                                                          Consumer complaint No.: CC/43/ 2020   

                                                          Date of Institution:           22.06.2020

                                                          Date of order:                    25.10.2024       

 

Vishal Nehra (since deceased) through his L. R.’s (1A) Neeraj Devi widow (1B) Honey Nehra minor son of Vishal Nehra through next friend, legal guardian mother complainant No. (1A), (1C) Khazani Devi wife of Balbir Singh (mother of deceased Vishal Nehra), residents of House No. 1755, Ward No. 1, Dharabir MLA wali Gali, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

…..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1. M/s Frontier Auto World Pvt. Ltd. G-1, Vatika City Point, M. G. Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 through its Director/Authorized person Umar Latief Khan.
2. Volkswagan Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd., C/o Volkswagn India Pvt. Ltd. E-1, MIDC Industrial Area (Phase-III), Sales and Services Training Centre Kharabwadi Khed Chakan Pune-410501. (now Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited, as mentioned by OP No.2 in its Written Statement).
3. Shri Ram General Insurance SCF P-29, Sector-14, 1^st Floor, Gurugram, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                       …..Opposite parties. 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Before-        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Amit Kumar Sanwal, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Kushal Parmar, Advocate for OP No. 2.

Shri Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP No. 3.

OP No. 1 already exparte.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased AMEO 1.0L MPI 56 KW MT Comfortline Car bearing Chasis No. MAXA19609KT -077262, Engine No. CHY K56004, registration No.HR84-4741 from OP No. 1, manufactured by OP No. 2, vide invoice No.GGN/1819/N360 dated 28.3.2019, Rs.5,54,000/- ex-showroom price of vehicle, a sum of Rs.15000/- towards lifetime road tax, Depo charges & temporary charges Rs.8900/-, CNG kit charges Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as insurance, total amount of Rs. 6,37,900/- to earn his livelihood and self use and the same was delivered by the OP No. 1 on 28.3.2019.  It is further averred that above said car was fully insured with the OP No. 3 vide policy No. 102015/31/19/014072 w.e.f. 28.3.2019 to 27.3.2020.  It is further averred that OP No. 1 charged Rs.2000/- at the time of handing over of vehicle to the complainant for giving temporary No. HR/26/TC/2018/18, which was totally false and fabricated one, as said temporary number did not match with the record of Transport Department.  It is further averred that the complainant paid charges to Transport Department and they issued temporary No. HR 84/AITP/LPV/2019/62 and also given permanent number.  It is further averred that on 6.6.2019, the original complainant was going to Badrinath and when he reached near Kedarnath, then the Air Bag opens automatically without any accident.  It is further averred that the complainant had immediately parked his car on the side of road and hardly saved life of the four persons including driver.  It is further averred that the complainant had called for roadside assistance service of Volkswagen Group of Sales India Pvt. Ltd. on toll free number, but they stated that they could reach in one and half day, then complainant took the vehicle to OP No. 1 at Gurugram and explained each and every thing i.e. air bag opened automatically and there was suspension/wobbling in engine.  It is further averred that the engineer of the OP ignored the suspension/wobbling in engine and about air bag opens automatically he told that technical team of company would visit and check the same.  It is further averred that the complainant had waited upto 30.7.2019 for technical team, but no one came to investigate the complaint.  It is further averred that OP No. 1 threatened that if the vehicle was not picked up then they will charge Rs. 500/- per day and in compelling circumstances the complainant picked up the vehicle and brought to his house.  It is further averred that a complaint was given to OP No. 1, who accepted the same, but did not take any action on the same.  It is further averred that the OP No. 1 put pressure on complainant to claim the amount from insurance company, but the complainant remained focused upon the issue of technical fault/manufacturing defect.  It is further averred that OP No. 1 on 19.6.2019 had issued a repair order No.SOA1902201.  It is further averred that the complainant made several requests to the OP No. 1 and 2, but they did not give any response.  It is further averred that some more defects i.e. i) The tyres were not original, ii) Except Chasis all the parts were manufactured of different years, which shows that car was used car and resold to the complainant, iii) No assistance was given by the OPs, iv) The OPs had not provided warranty services, as promised by them.  It is further averred that the income source of complainant has closed and he stoped making payment to the financer and the financer threatened him to declare defaulter in case of non-payment.  It is further averred that in compelling circumstances, complainant had paid the loan amount to the financer after borrowing the money from his relatives.  It is further averred that all the part of the car in question having different manufacturing years except chasis, which itself shows that car was old one, which was earlier sold to someone else and then sold to complainant.  It is further averred that the car in question was met with an accident and then it was repaired and sold to the complainant.  It is further averred that on dated 6.3.2020, when the complainant was travelling by car in question, the car was broken down again and after that complainant anyhow reached the mechanic at Charkhi Dadri, where he came to know that the engine of the car seized and he informed the OPs, but no assistance was provided by them.  It amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs to refund car price  i.e. Rs. 6,37,900/- alongwith interest upto date, Rs.3,30,000/- loss of income, Rs.2,40,000/- expense of car repair, Rs. 6,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice.  Any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission deem fit may also be granted.

2.                Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                On appearance, the OP No. 2 had filed written statement stating therein that the answering OP Volkswagen Group has been amalgamated and new legal entity is: - Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited, as per order dated 5.9.2019 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal.  It is averred that the allegations of selling old car with manufacturing defects are false and malafide.  It is further averred that the complainant had made a baseless allegation regarding having defect in the car without substantiating the same with any expert report, as no expert report placed on record by the complainant.  It is further averred that the responsibility of OP No. 2 is limited for repairs and the replacement of parts in the car purchased by complainant under warranty for a limited period and subject to certain terms and conditions and not an absolute.  It is further averred that the complainant is not entitle to refund the cost of car and any amount of compensation, in any case.  It is further averred that the complainant apparently reported the car after causing an accident, thereby, there was deployment of airbags in the car.  It is further averred that the damage to the car was due to external reasons (accident) and the answering OP is not liable to repair or rectify the same under warranty.  It is further averred that the complainant can approach to insurance company for necessary repair and rectifications in the car for the damage caused due to accident.  It is further averred that the dealer offered to refund of Rs.2000/- purportedly received for registration and complainant had to visit the showroom of the dealer to collect a cheque of Rs.2000/-.  It is further averred that the complainant reported the car to the workshop of dealer on 19.6.2019 at 4500/- Kms for the complaint “Check Air Bags deployed automatically without any accident” and informed the workshop that repair work need to be done under warranty.  It is further averred that the workshop observed that evidently the car was reported for accidental damages in the car and hence, the workshop informed complainant to approach the insurance company.  It is further averred that the dealer had informed the complainant that the workshop would inspect the car after receiving the insurance claim documents.  It is further averred that the dealer vide email dated 10.7.2019 informed the complainant that the dealer was not liable for repair/replacement of any part and further vide email dated 16.7.2019 informed that the amount of Rs.2000/- had already been refunded to complainant, vide email dated 18.7.2019 informed that the air bags in the car needed replacement and the dealer had also sent emails dated 19.7.2019 & 29.7.2019 to complainant.  It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                On notice, the OP No. 3 appeared and filed a separate written statement alleging therein that there was manufacturing defect in the car purchased by the complainant, bearing RC No. HR84-4741, as the complainant mentioned in his complaint that air bags of the cars had suddenly opened and he also reported that there was some defects in the engine of the car.  It is averred that no accident had taken place with car in question and there was no coverage of manufacturing defects under the insurance policy.  It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.                The complainant and the OP No. 3 in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of the relevant record is given in this order.  On the other hand, the OP No. 2 failed to produce any evidence in its support and evidence was closed by this Commission vide order dated 14.8.2024.    

6.                 We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

7.                After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 & 2.  The complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record certain documents.  On the other hand, the OP No. 2 has failed in proving its stand taken in its written statement by not submitting cogent and convincing documentary evidence.  It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No. 1, manufactured by OP No. 2, on 28.3.2019.  The main plea of the complainant is that the air bags of the vehicle in question were automatically opened while the original complainant viz. Shri Vishal Nehra was going to Badrinath. This incidence created psycho-fear in the mind of the user of the car being life threatening incidence.  This fact was brought into the notice of OP No. 1 and 2, but both of them failed to address the said important issue and indulged in insignificant issues such as refund of temporary registration charges of Rs. 2000/-, service fall under warranty period or not, etc. and ignored the main issue of opening of Air Bags in a running car without any accident, which was attributed to OP No. 2 the manufacturer company.  The OP No. 2 has taken the plea that the air bags were opened due to accident, but the OP No. 2 has failed in proving its stand by leading documentary evidence, such as surveyor report, copy of FIR/DDR etc. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record so many documents i.e. Ex. C1 to C26 to prove his case which comprises emails to the OP No.1 and 2, inter-alia highlighting issue of opening of air bags.   As discussed above, it is clear from the documents placed on record by the complainant that vehicle in question was used by someone else prior to selling the same to complainant.  It is admitted fact that the vehicle was sold to the complainant for total Rs.6,37,900/- on dated 28.3.2019 and the said car had some technical problems.  These technical problems had caused culmination of doubt in the mind of the complainant that the OP No. 1 had sold old car to him having some manufacturing defect which was further supported by incidence of opening of air bags without any accident. With a view to get mechanical examination of the vehicle, this Commission vide its order dated 16.12.2022 directed the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Charkhi Dadri to submit his report after mechanically analysis of the vehicle. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Charkhi Dadri submitted Report vide letter NO.6033 dated 23/03/2023 wherein it was mentioned that chasis number of matches with the chasis number mentioned in RC, make of the battery was of Exide with 03/19 date thereon, date on the frame was mentioned as 01/03/19 and mentioned Tax Invoice Nos for sale by the manufacturing company to the dealer viz. Frontier Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. and by the dealer to the complainant. There was no observation on the opening of the air bags in running car without any accident.

8.       The OP No. 3 is an insurer, who has no direct role in selling the car in question to the complainant. The complainant has not filed any claim with the insurance company and he/they are seeking relief from the OP No.1 and 2 for the technical problems emerged in the vehicle. There is no role of OP No.3 in respect of manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   

9.                In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, it may be summed up that the original complainant had come across an incidence of opening of air bags in running vehicle without any accidents which attributed to the manufacturing defect and the manufacturing company OP No. 1 is responsible for the same. The issue of refund of registration fee of Rs.2,000/- had already been resolved, as the fee was refunded to the complainant. The issue of sale of old vehicle culminated because of incidence of opening of air bags without any accident. Hence, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent of manufacturing defect of opening of air bags in running condition of the vehicle without any accident attributed to the manufacturing company OP No.1  with following directions: -

i)        The OP No. 1 to examine the issue of opening of air bags without any accident and resolve any defect alongwith replacement of air bags with new one, if any free of costs and if already replaced by complainant himself then pay/refund the entire cost incurred on it and to ensure that such incident should not happen again to the vehicle i.e. AMEO 1.0L MPI 56 KW MT Comfortline Car bearing Chasis No. MAXA19609KT -077262, Engine No. CHY K56004, registration No. HR84-4741 sold to the complainant;

(ii)      The OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship caused to the complainant.

iii)      The OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

10.              The above amount shall be disbursed in all complainants in equal share and in case of minor their amount shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in the shape of FD and withdrawn by the minor on attaining the age of maturity.  The OP No. 1 & 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Non compliance of this order on the part of OP No. 1 & 2 will lead to action in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  Order be promptly uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.