Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/53/2021

Autopace Network Pvt. Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuldeep Singh - Opp.Party(s)

P. K. Kukreja & Anshul Kukreja Adv.

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	53 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	11.08.2021
Date of Decision	:	18.07.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager/Authorised Signatory, Elante Mall, Ground Floor (Office Block), Plot No.178/178A, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

 

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.

Versus

1]       Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Sant Singh, aged about 64 years resident of House No.3094, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

 

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

2]       Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Registered Office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its authorized signatory.

 

3]       Regional Manager, Regional Office (North II), Maruti Suzuki India Limited, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-  

 

Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

        This appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.3 (Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd.) (appellant herein), against order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby consumer complaint bearing No.87 of 2019 filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Kuldeep Singh (respondent No.1 herein) has been allowed against the opposite parties including the appellant, in the following manner:-

“7]       From the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite parties with following direction:-

a)  To replace defective parts/s causing oil leakage from the car after thorough inspection of the car, free of cost;

b)  To refund an amount Rs.20,190/- to the complainant, so paid for extended warranty;

c)  To pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment suffered by him due to deficient services rendered by them, as well as litigation expenses.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.20000/- apart from the above relief.”

2.      The brief facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the District Commission are as under:-

“Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a new Maruti Baleno Diesel Car on 26.4.2017 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.7,77,214/- and got it registered vide Regd. No.CH01-BM-7893.  It is averred that before the second due service of the car, when it covered only 4667 kms, it gave problem and when it was taken to OP No.3, the mechanic replaced a faulty seal “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH” (Ann.C-2).  The complainant again noticed oil leakage beneath the engine of the car, so it was again taken to OP No.3 when it covered only 9554 Kms while attending 3^rd service and again replacement of “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH” was done (An.C-3). It is also stated that the same problem of engine oil leakage again occurred and the complainant again took the vehicle to OP No.3 and attended 4^th service and reported the matter whereupon the OP again replaced the seal “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH”.  It is submitted that OP No.1 had charged the complainant when he reported the said defect of oil leakage i.e. Rs.1025/- at second service, Rs.5073/- at third service and Rs.8781/- during fourth service (Ann.C-2 to C-4). 

         It is pleaded that the complainant followed warranty terms & conditions whereas all his request for replacement of defective parts causing damage to the seal leading to leakage of oil from the car repeatedly during warranty  period were ignored to deprive him of its benefit, though the complainant had been charged Rs.20,190/- (Ann.C-5) by OP No.3 on account of extended warranty which was otherwise avoidable as the original warranty lasts upto 40000 KMs or 24 months from the date of purchase.  It is also pleaded that the frequent occurring of oil leakage fault in the brand new car of the complainant that too within warranty period and despite reporting the matter to OP No.3 who failed to set it right permanently, was the reason that the complainant could not go for long road  trip being afraid that due to leakage of oil from the car, any major mishap could occur while travelling in the defective car. The complainant being fed up with the deficient service of the OP No.3 and irresponsible attitude, sent legal notice on 8.1.2019, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the problem of engine oil leakage has always been attended as per warranty and the necessary parts have been replaced on free of cost basis under warranty. It is stated that the relationship between the answering OPs and dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement.  It is stated that on second free service on 7.9.2019 at 4667 kms., the engine oil leakage was reported and demanded repair; the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty. It is also stated that on 3^rd free service on 9.1.2018 the car was sent to work shop at 9554 kms. i.e. after the vehicle had been plied for another 4887 kms. after the second service and engine oil leakage was reported as demanded repair; the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty.  It is also submitted that the vehicle was sent to work shop of OP No.3 for periodic maintenance service on 10.10.2018 at 17907 kms. i.e. after the vehicle had been plied for another 8353 kms after 3^rd service and engine oil leakage was reported which demanded repairs, as such, the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty. It is pleaded that after that visit, the vehicle has never been sent to any authorized workshop of the answering OPs for alleged problem of engine oil leakage, which indicates that the vehicle was being purposefully plied by the complainant and there was no problem in it after the necessary repairs were carried out under warranty. It is also pleaded that as the vehicle was plied for another 4887 kms the allegations of the part being defective is uncalled for.  It is further pleaded that had there been a defect, the vehicle would not have plied such a distance. It is submitted that necessary replacements were carried out on free of cost basis under warranty and the amount charged from the complainant was for the consumables and labour charges.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself has assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. It is further submitted that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of answering OPs causing any loss or harassment to the complainant. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.3 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have taken almost identical pleas as has been taken by OPs NO.1 & 2 in their written statement, hence needs not to be repeated herein.  However, it is stated that rubber seal of gear oil was changed on free of costs during warranty and there was no leakage beneath the engine of the car.  It is also stated that the said seal is not meant for engine oil, the ‘Seal Diff Side Oil RH’ was not affecting performance of the vehicle nor the said rubber part was to curb the purported engine oil leakage nor anything was charged for it.  The cost as alleged by the complainant was charged for consumable items.  It is submitted that the car is not suffering from the damages, oil leakage, defect etc. and the complainant is regularly utilizing the car and has concocted a false story with ulterior motive about alleged defect in the car. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.3 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.” 

3.      The order of Ld. District Commission has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the leakage of oil is not a manufacturing defect and respondent No.1 has failed to prove on record that the engine oil was leaking as there was no leakage of the gear oil rather the dust formation was found, which item was replaced. It has further been stated that history of the vehicle does not reveal that dust formation from the Seal Differential, there was any apprehension or contended fire episode. It has further been stated that in compliance to the impugned order, respondent No.1 brought the car to the workshop of the appellant on 28.07.2021 and after thoroughly checking the vehicle in his presence, neither leakage of oil was noticed nor there was any need to replace any part. It has further been stated that respondent No.1 also gave his remarks on the satisfaction note that no oil leakage from any seal area and found OK. It has further been stated that the vehicle was maintained by the appellant as per warranty terms extended by respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and the appellant is not expected to go beyond the said warranty. It has further been stated that the Ld. District Commission below was not expected to pass any order against the appellant beyond the warranty terms. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled M/s E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Baby Benjamin Thusharal (1992) CPJ 272 (NC); Bank of Baroda Vs. Arvind Modern Dal and Rice Mill, 1996 (1) CPJ 43 NCDRC and  Commercial Officer vs. Bihar Warehousing Corporation, 1991 (1) CPJ 40 NCDRC. On these grounds, the impugned order is sought to be set aside.

4.      On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant (Sh. Kuldeep Singh, it was argued that the order of the Ld. District Commission is based on true appreciation of facts and documents on record. It has further been stated that the appellant is referring to the condition of car subsequent to comprehensive repair carried out from 30.08.2019 to 02.09.2019 on the interim direction dated 19.08.2019 of Ld. District Commission. It has further been stated that thus, running of car during the period which is subsequent to repair has no relevance to the dispute in hand. It has further been stated that  the carrying out of future service of the car on 28.07.2021, well after the passing of impugned order dated 17.06.2021 is irrelevant and does not absolve the appellant from its liability arising from their previous acts and conduct. It has further been stated that aforesaid remarks mentioned in the alleged satisfaction note are not in the handwriting of respondent No.1 and is a fabricated document prepared subsequent to taking of signatures at its fag end. It has further been stated that the judgments relied upon by the appellant are not even remotely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of appeal has been made.  

5.      MA/202/2022 has been moved on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 for recalling of order dated 08.11.2021 passed by this Commission vide which they were proceeded ex-parte for non-appearance. We allow respondents No.2 & 3 to join the proceedings at this stage. They have already filed their written arguments. MA/202/2022 stands disposed of accordingly. MA/529/2021 filed by the appellant for stay & MA/278/2022 filed by respondent No.1 for preponment of this appeal, stand dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

6.      After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bare perusal of documents evidence placed before the Ld. District Commission transpires that the vehicle of respondent No.1 was taken to the workshop of the appellant on 09.01.2018, as per Job Order, Exhibit R-1/4 for Oil Leakage to be checked, on 10.10.2018 as per Job Oder, Exhibit R-1/5 for Engine Oil Leakage – 3^rd Time and on 30.08.2019 as per Job Order, Exhibit R-3/1 for Front RHS Leakage o be checked, when the vehicle had just covered 23,163 KMs. It may be stated here that vide interim order dated 19.08.2019, on the readiness of its authorized agent of Opposite Party No.3/appellant, Ld. District Commission directed the appellant to take the vehicle to the workshop and replace the defective parts and repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of respondent No.1/complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of vehicle in question and to file status report. The vehicle, after repairs on 30.08.2019 as per aforesaid Job Order for Front RHS Leakage o be checked, when it had just covered 23,163 KMs, was handed over back to respondent No.1 without job sheet. On the request of Counsel for respondent No.1, to check whether the vehicle is running smoothly or not, the case was adjourned to 05.11.2019 and direction was also issued to the appellant to issue job card to respondent No.1 regarding repair done with the vehicle, which was duly placed on record in terms of Satisfaction Note dated 02.09.2019, Exhibit R-3/3, which respondent No.1 has disputed being a fabricated one. It is no doubt true that the vehicle was reported to the workshop of the appellant thrice or may be more with the problem of oil leakage. Even after attending the vehicle, on interim directions given by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 19.08.2019, job sheet was not supplied to the complainant, which was then brought on record in terms of Satisfaction Note dated 02.09.2019, when directed by the Ld. District Commission. Thus, an adverse inference is drawn against the appellant qua the said Satisfaction Note to the extent that respondent No.1, after such a repair, was still not satisfied with the repairs carried out on interim directions of the Ld. District Commission.  

7.      Not only above, as submitted on behalf of respondent No.1, carrying out of future service of the car on 28.07.2021 i.e. after passing of impugned order, is of no relevance and the same does not absolve the appellant from its liability arising from their previous acts and conduct. In our concerted view, the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and also precisely held the brand new car, for which, respondent No.1 had spent his huge hard earned money, was expected to perform as per company’s declared & advertised standards and thus, there was deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of the opposite parties. So far as the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the vehicle was maintained by it as per warranty terms extended by respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and the appellant is not expected to go beyond the said warranty, it may be stated here that a consumer who purchased a brand new vehicle also expects the promised standards and functionality from the said vehicle and in case, any such problem/defect occurs therein, for which, it is reported again and again at the workshop for rectification of the said defect, one can imagine the plight of the said consumer, who had spent lakhs of rupee for purchasing the said vehicle. Even one can imagine mental agony and harassment suffered by a consumer for such deficiency in rendering service. The citations relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts. In our considered opinion, the Ld. District Commission has rightly held the appellant deficient in rendering service and rightly allowed the complaint by ordering to replace defective parts causing oil leakage from the car after thorough inspection of the car, free of cost. Thus, the order of the Ld. District Commission does not suffer from any illegality and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.      MA/279/2022 filed by respondent No.1/complainant stands dismissed. However, respondent No.1/complainant is at his liberty to approach the Ld. District Commission for the relief prayed for in the said application.              

10.    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11.    The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

18.07.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad