Delhi

East Delhi

CC/507/2016

OMPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAWAB MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.507/2016

 

	OMPAL SINGH R/O: 4/2559, GALI NO. 10, BIHARI COLONY, SHAHDARA, DELHI – 110032	….Complainant
Versus
	NAWAB MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED 87, F.I.E. PATPARGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA DELHI – 110092	……OP
	NAWAB MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED C-24, SECTOR-8, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH PIN-201301
	NAWAB MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED F-16, SHANKAR MARKET, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001

 

Date of Institution	:	26.09.2016
Judgment Reserved on	:	16.02.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	22.02.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)

 

Order By:

Ms. Rashmi Bansal

(Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP for not providing extended warranty for the car purchased from OP despite payment and declining the amount spent in repairing the car which has caused him physical and mental harassment and praying for issuance of the extended warranty certificate, cost of the repairing of the car, compensation for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost with interest.

1. It is the case of the complainant that considering the discount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and benefits of extended warranty on purchasing the Skoda Rapid car, as per the advertisement of OP, published in Times of India dated 16.12.2012, he approached OP on 23.12.2012, at its showroom for purchasing the said car. The above said scheme was confirmed by OP stating that there is benefit of insurance @ Rs. 1/- as well as 2+2 years/1,00,000/ kilometer extended warranty. The complainant was also shown the price list of the said car where in the benefits of two years extended warranty was mentioned for purchasing the above said car.
2. As per assurances and benefit of the extended warranty and discount of Rs.1,20,000/-, the complainant booked the car on 23.12.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.9,45,627/- on road and after discount of Rs.1,20,000/-,  the  net paying value was Rs. 8,25,627/- which was duly paid by the complainant by raising a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from State bank of India, and the rest of the amount was paid in cash or through credit card and a cheque amounting to Rs.20,000/-  was also issued as the booking amount to the OP and on booking, the necessary documents, i.e. invoice, insurance, service book was also handed over to the complainant by the OP.
3. That on 06.08.2016, the complainant found some problem in the said car and on 07.08.2016 he took the car to the service station of OP and informed about the problem in the car. An estimated bill dated 23.08.2016 of Rs.90,927/- were sent on the email of the complainant upon which he has enquired from OP that when the car is under the extended warranty period, then the problem in the car has to be removed without raising any charges. The workshop service Centre demanded the documents relating to extended warranty scheme and the complainant handed over the documents which were given to him by the OP at the time of booking/handing over the car but the said documents were not considered by the service station officials and they asked for certificate of extended warranty, which was not given to the complainant by the OP and only the booklet duly endorsed with the stamp of extended guarantee without disclosing any specific date was given to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant visited the showroom and demanded the said certificate from the OP which was denied by OP stating that the complainant has not paid the necessary amount of extended warranty certificate.
4. Complainant submits that he has informed the OP that he has paid all the consideration amount of purchasing the car as per their scheme/advertisement dated 16.12.2012 and he is having a right to get a certificate from them, but the OP refused to give the said certificate to the complainant. The complainant has sent letter dated 07.09.2016 and email dated 15.09.2016 in this regard, but no reply was given by OP.
5. The complainant alleges that despite payment of entire consideration for purchasing of the car, he was not given all the benefits as promised in terms of their scheme/advertisement dated 16.12.2012 and due to negligent act of OP, the car of the complainant has to be kept in the service centre for more than one month due to which the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and pain and even loss of his work. Therefore, the complainant prayed for  returning the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the car i.e. Rs. 90,927/- along with compensation of Rs. two lakh for physically and mentally harassment & litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%, per annum. The complainant also seeks direction to the OP for issuing him the extended warranty certificate.
6. OP has filed its written statement denying all the allegations of complainant stating that the complaint is filed on the basis of concocted and frivolous facts, and there is no cause of action qua the OP. It is submitted that no extended warranty was given by the OP to the complainant and the same was clearly apprised to the complainant that the facility/benefit of extended warranty only be availed by the complainant when he got his car insured under ‘Skoda Shield’ category. It is stated that it is the policy of the company Skoda, the manufacturer, that the person who would take insurance cover under ‘Skoda Shield’ would get the extended warranty and no other car would be entitle to such benefit. It is further stated that the insurance premium for ‘Skoda Shield’ category was Rs.41,122/- and the cost of normal insurance was around Rs. 25,600/- and after considering the huge gap of around Rs. 16,000/- between the two, the complainant insured his car under the normal scheme. It is further submited that since the complainant had willfully not opted for ‘Skoda Shield’ scheme of insurance and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of extended warranty by the company. OP states that complainant now cannot seek or ask for the benefit of extended warranty which initially he himself had quitted. OP submits that the complainant has now become dishonest and wants to extract money illegally from OP by levelling false and frivolous allegations against them. OP further submits that no correspondence of any nature had been received by the OP from the complainant in this regard and it has received only legitimate payments from the complainant towards the cost of the car and of the services.  No illegal payment has been taken from the complainant. The OP further submits that the delay in service was caused due to delay in granting approval to the OP to initiate the work upon the car and extreme hardship caused to it in keeping the car of the complainant for such a long time and instead complainant is liable to pay parking charges to the OP for unnecessarily delaying in giving the approval to the OP.
7. The complainant has filed the rejoinder negating the submissions made by the OP and has reiterated its version taken in the complaint. Both the parties have filed evidence in support of their case and the written arguments. The complainant has filed the following documents in support of his case:-
   1. The original order booking form dated 23.12.2012; Ex. CW1/1;
   2. The original receiving cheque bearing number 177097 dated 23.12.2012 of Rs. 20,000/-, Ex. CW1/2;
   3. The original receipt of receiving the cheque of Rs.20,000/-, Ex. CW1/3;
   4. The original invoice bill dated 29.12.2012, Ex. CW1/4;
   5. The original certified copy of receipt dated 29.12.2012, Ex.CW1/5;
   6. The original receipt of credit card, Ex. CW1/6–1 to 6-4; 
   7. The original extended warranty, endorsement of booklet, Ex. CW1/7;
   8. The original motor insurance copy not (customer copy dated 29.12.2012), Ex. CW1/8;
   9. The advertisement dated 16.12.2012, Ex. CW1/9;
   10. The original price list of cars, Ex. CW1/10;
   11. The copy of letters dated 07.09.2016 & 15.09.2016, with postal receipt, estimate of repairs, Ex. CW1/11 & Ex. CW1/12  ;
8. OP has not filed any document in its evidence.
9. This Commission has perused the documents on record carefully and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. The issue is as to whether mere  stamps on the booklet with respect to the extended warranty is sufficient or a certificate of extended warranty  is necessary and if a certificate is also necessary then as to why the booklet was stamped  and if it was stamped  inadvertently, then why it was not rectified for all four years by OP
10. The advertisement, which is not disputed is Ex. CW1/9, clearly mentioned that “Insurance @ Rs.1/- , 2+2 years/1,00,000 kilometer extended warranty, Accessories Bundles, or SAKODA Care for 3 yrs / 45,000 kms and Rapid Anniversary Bonus.” None of the above condition shows that complainant is bound to take the insurance from OP at its terms and conditions and that only after taking the insurance from OP, under the ‘Skoda Shield’ category the complainant will get 2+2 years extended warranty. The said advertisement is not denied by OP. Though the astrics (*) are put but that was on the words ‘1,00,000 kms’ and ‘45,000 kms’, not on the ‘2+2yrs’. Therefore, this is concluded that the above said advertisement coveys to the public at large that the company is providing extended warranty of two years on the purchase of the said vehicle.
11. OP has not placed on record any document to show that for getting the above stated extended warranty, the complainant is required to take the particular insurance provided by the company or that any such information has been provided to the complainant in advance or at the time of purchase of vehicle.
12. The service schedule, Ex. CW1/7, given by the OP to the complainant bears stamps of the authorized SKODA dealer of OP making the sale and the said stamp is put on the endorsement for the extended warranty (page 1 of Ex. CW1/7). By the same stamp the OP has confirmed the sale and the delivery of the vehicle. Moreover, the said endorsement clearly mentions that “the extended warranty confirmed with a stamp by the authorized SKODA dealer making the sale.” Below the stamp also written “confirmation of extended warranty within a limit of”…… It was the duty of the OP to put the specific date for the warranty period whereas only the stamp has been put with the Signature of authorized person.  This document or signature are not denied by the OP and is an admitted document. Though OP erred in not mentioning the specific date in extended warranty column, however, from the date of purchase and the due date of the next service mentioned in the delivery inspection column (which is on the same page), the duration could be calculated for the purpose of extended warranty.
13. Further, the service schedule, Ex. CW1/7,  at page 4 under the heading “The importance of the Service Schedule” mentions that “we confirm in the service schedule the date of delivery of your vehicle and the start of warranty cover for your vehicle” which  implies that the extended warranty shall run from the date of delivery mentioned in the service card which  is 29.12.2012, valid till 29.12.2016 and the service taken by the complainant is on 07.08.2016 i.e. within the extended warranty period. 
14. The complainant was handed over only the service schedule for extended warranty and there was no reason for doubting OP that despite stamping and the inscription on the document he would need separate extended warranty certificate, especially when there is no whisper about this from the side of OP. Therefore, complainant or for that purpose any prudent person of  normal understanding would  have no apprehension that the extended warranty would  not be honored by OP, especially when the stamp and signature of authorized person of OP are validly accepted for delivery of the car. Therefore, the OP cannot deny, in the absence of any evidence, that extended warranty was not given to the complainant.
15. The price list, Ex. CW1/10, clearly mentions that SAKODA shield insurance consists one-year comprehensive insurance, and two years extended warranty with roadside assistance.
16. After considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the OP fails to place on record any such terms and conditions negating extended warranty to the complainant and therefore he is found deficient in its services for providing proper services to the complainant under the extended warranty. It also stands proved that there was a stamp with respect to the extended warranty, it is sufficient to grant the extended warranty without any ‘ifs and buts’. Further, so far as, the question for reimbursement of the bill of Rs.90,927/- is concerned, it is not disputed.  This Commission is also cautious of the fact that the OP has used the misleading advertisement by hiding the true facts to lure and convince the public to buy the vehicle by offering them the extended warranty which it didn’t intend to provide to its customer, therefore found to be indulged in unfair trade practices, to which this Commission cannot close its eyes.
17. Therefore, OP is directed to return the repairs value of Rs. 90,927/-  to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6%, per annum, from 26.09.2016, the date of filing of complaint along with Rs. 15,000/-  towards compensation for causing mental harassment, agony and torture to the complainant, including the litigation cost. The OP is also directed to deposit Rs. 15,000/- for being indulged into unfair trade practice to the State Commission Welfare Fund (Legal Aid), Account Number 10310544717, State Bank of India, I.P. Estate.
18. The above stated order be complied within one month from the date of receiving of the order by the OP, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 9%, per annum on the entire amount till the actual realization by the complainant. The prayer of Complainant to issue extended warranty certificate is of no use as being infractuous.
19. The copy of the order be given to the parties to the dispute as per CPA rules, 1986. The order be uploaded on the website and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
20. The complaint could not be decided with a statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases before this commission.
21. The order contains – 12 pages, Each beers our signatures.

Announced on –22.02.2023