Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/267

Mahesha. H. S/o. Hanumantharayapa Aged about 35 Yeras - Complainant(s)

Versus

SKODA Auto India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Unnati Law Chambers Lakshmikanth. K.

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 07.02.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 11.12.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.267/2014

DATED THIS THE 11^th DECEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mahesha.H

S/o Hanumantharayappa,

aged about 35 years,

Resident of Pattanayakanahalli, Gowdagere hobli,

Sira Taluk

 

GPA holder of

Sri.Sri.Sri.Nanjavadutha Swamiji, Peetadikarigalu,

Sri.Gurugunda Brahmeswar Maha Samsthana Mutt, Pattanayakanahalli,

Sira Taluk,

Tumakuru District

 

By Advocates

M/s.Unnati Law Chambers      

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd.,

Plot no.A-1/1,

Shendra, Five Star

Industrial Area, MIDL, Aurgangabad-431201.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Juris Nexus

 

2. The Tafe Access Ltd.,

No.919, Barani Industrial

Estate, Garvepalaya, Chikkabegur Road,

Off Hosur Road,

Bengaluru-68.

 

By Adv.Sri.Josita Juris

 

 

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s 12 of the CP Act against the Opposite parties no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) seeking direction against them to repair and deliver the Skoda laura Car and direct them to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation towards negligence, deficiency in service and for mental agony, hypertension and inconvenience caused to him. Further seeking to award the cost of this proceedings and also to pass such other order as this forum deems fit.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he purchased a Skoda Laura Car (herein after referred as the said car) bearing chassis no.TMBBSBIZ47A150855, Engine no.BJB-202651 in June 2007 from the Op.no.1 by paying a valuable consideration and the same was registered in the RTO Tumkur as registration bearing no.KA-06-M-6599 on 26.06.2007. It is also the case of the Complainant that, he used the said car for his personal use and he has been regularly servicing the car from the Op.no.2 who is the authorized service center of the Op.no.1. He submits that he has maintained the car in a good and tenable condition and the Op.no.2 have acknowledged the serving of the car in the service book let. The Complainant further submits that, he was travelling in the said car on 10.08.2013, suddenly there was a burst from the engine and lot of the sparks and smoke emerged out of the engine. The driver of the Complainant at once stopped the car at the spot and the burst was so drastic that even the front windshield also broke. Immediately the Complainant contacted the Op.no.2 narrating the above, to which the Op.no.2 informed the Complainant to get the car to its service center and that the car will be repaired and the issue will be rectified. The Complainant further submits that believing the assurance of the op.2, the Complainant brought the car to their service center on 10.08.2013 and left it for serving by towing. At the reception the service person Mr.Anilkumar received the car and issued workshop order/job card and informed the Complainant that, they will check the problem and resolve it and inform the Complainant. At that juncture, the repair was not accessed and no quotation for repair was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that, thereafter there was no response from the Op.no.2 even after lapse of 38 days and when the Complainant contacted them repeatedly, on 18.09.2013, the Op.no.2 sent a mail stating that the car’s cylinder head was removed, photos were taken and sent to Skoda Technical team who will analyze and cause for failure and awaited final conclusion. The Complainant further submits that, later the Op.no.2 had confirmed that the car has suffered an engine damage due to hydrostatic lock and base engine had to be replaced and demanded a whooping Rs. 10 lakhs to be spent by the Complainant towards the repairs without asserting any reasons. The Complainant was shocked and surprised by the response given by the Op.no.2 and demand of amount towards the repair for no fault on the part of the Complainant. The further Complainant submits that, the problem in the car is due to manufacturing defect and not due to any accident or due of fault of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that, all of sudden when he was travelling in the car, the engine had a burst and emitted fire and smoke. In fact the burst was so severe that, there was a threat to the life of the Complainant and the Complainant was saved by God’s grace and luck. Since it was a manufacturing defect, the Complainant insisted for repair of the car forthwith without demand for any repair charges. The Complainant further submits that, Op.no.2 started to avoid the Complainant and began to give evasive replies and also suddenly started blaming the Complainant for the damage of the car, knowing fully well that the damage is purely manufacturing fault and no other persons and to add to it, the Op.no.2 without repairing the car has withheld the car for a period of nearly four months and began to demand for parking charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per day, which is illegal and baseless. In fact during that period, the Op.no.2 is bound to arrange alternative for its valued customers, but the Complainant did not have a car to ply and had to hire a private taxi, incurring huge expenditure. The Complainant further submits that, apart from the several emails exchanged between the Op.no.2, and the Complainant, which clearly depicts that the defect in the car is manufacturing defect and to avoid responsibility, the Op has been avoiding the Complainant and hence, left with no other option, the Complainant caused a legal notice dtd.17.12.2013 to the Op.no.2 and on 28.12.2013 to the Op.no.1. The notice sent to the Op.no.2 is duly served on 18.12.2013 and the notice issued to the Op.no.1 is not yet returned nor the Complainant has received the acknowledgement and hence, it is deemed to be served. Inspite of the notice, the Ops have not come to comply with the demands made by the Complainant. He further submits that the act of the Ops in not adhering to the numerous request and reminders of the Complainant amounts to gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence, he filed this complaint.

 

          3. On issuance of the notice to the Ops, the Op.no.1 & 2 did appear through their respective counsels and filed independent version. The version of Op.no.1 is denying with regard to the alleged deficiency of service on its part. The Op.no.1 submits that the Complainant purchased the Skoda Laura Car from Op.no.2. Further submits that Op.no.1 is unaware as to who was using the car. The Op.no.2 informs that it has serviced the car whenever it was brought there. This Op is unaware as to how the Complainant has maintained his car. It is submitted that the car was purchased in April 2007 and not in June 2007 as stated by the Complainant and the Complainant has run the car for over 6 years without facing any problem with the cr. This itself indicates and evident that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. This Op has no knowledge as to what transpired on 10.08.2013 and therefore is unable to comment or counter the same. This Op is further not aware of the discussions between the Complainant and the Op.no.2. Further Op.no.1 submits that it may be true that the Complainant brought the car to the service center of the Op.no.2 on 10.08.2013 and left it for service. This Op is not privy to any of the discussions that may have happened between the Complainant and Op.no.2. It is true that the authorized service station being the Op.no.2 consulted this Op on the technical aspects of repairing the car. The Op.no.2, upon examining the car, noticed that the damage to the engine was due to hydrostatic lock.. The Op.no.2 also informed that the Complainant had not got the service of the car done at proper intervals at Skoda authorized dealers. The servicing of the car was not carried out as per Skoda specified kilometers. The Complainant had got the car serviced at 82,719 kms on 11.01.2013 and the car was due for next service at 97719 kms or within one year, which ever was earlier. The Complainant had not taken the car for its service till 100892 kms as on 17.08.2013 and it was noticed that the car may have been serviced at a local garage as the coolant used for the engine was not as per Skoda specification. The Op.no.2 further informs that the oil filters was changed and replaced by non-genuine part and the same did not match the standards set by manufacturer. Further, the Op.no.2 also informed that certain parts in the car were replaced by non-genuine parts. Consequently, the engine temperature has over shot the working temperature resulting in damage to the engine and further triggering in engine burst due to expansion of internal pressure in cylinder and not due to any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the Complainant. Op.no.1 further submits that the correspondence between the Complainant and Op.no.2 is concerned, Op.no.2 informs this Op that it has notified to the Complainant on 23.09.2013 that they have received the technical report and sought for Complainant’s approval to carry out necessary repairs. Op.no.2 further informs that the Complainant remained silent till 22.10.2013 and on 23.10.2013 wrote to Op.no.2 that he will approach the appropriate forum to seek relief. The Op.no.1 further submits that the car has travelled more than one lakh kilometers and does not suffer from any manufacturing defect nor has there been any deficiency in the services rendered by this Op. The consequential damage to the vehicle was due to hydrostatic lock and not because of manufacturing defect. Since the car is not covered under warranty this Op will not be able to repair the car under warranty. The Op.no.1 further submits that the Complainant is not willing to pay for the repairs and is insisting on coverage under warranty when the car is not covered under warranty. This being the case, the authorized service station has no choice but to ask for parking charges. Be that as it may, this Op is not aware of the discussions between the authorized service station and the Complainant. If the Complainant was inconvenienced it was due to his own omissions and commissions and this Op cannot be blamed for it. Op.no.1 further submits that the car is purchased in 2007 and travelled more than one lakh kms and the same is no longer covered under warranty. The Complainant is looking to get the repairs done free of charge and therefore is alleging manufacturing defect, where there is none. There is also no deficiency in the service rendered by this Op. This Op cannot comply with all arbitrary and unreasonable demands made by the Complainant. The non-compliance of unreasonable demands made by the Complainant cannot be termed as gross negligence or deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  The Op.no.1 further submits that the Op.no.2 informs that it is ready and willing to repair the car provided it gets paid for it as the car is no longer covered under warranty. It is therefore denied that the authorized dealer is not willing to repair the car. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on part of the Ops. This Op has not been negligent and nor has it been grossly negligent. There is no cause for the Complainant to file the above complaint. The Op.no.2, upon examining the car, noticed that the damage to the engine was due to hydrostatic lock. The Complainant has not got the car serviced as per this Op’s instructions and further several parts of the car has been replaced by non-genuine parts. It was noticed that the car may have been serviced at a local garage as the coolant used for the engine was not as per Skoda specification. Consequently, the engine temperature has over shot the working temperature resulting in damage to the engine and further triggering in engine burst due to expansion of internal pressure in cylinder and not due to any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the Complainant. It is also submits that there is no any cause of action for the Complainant to file this instant complaint as against it much less against the Op.no.2. The car has not suffered from any manufacturing defect nor there no any deficiency in service provided to the Complainant by the Ops. The complaint filed by the Complainant is with malafide intention to take illegal gains and to tarnish the image of this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs.5 lakhs.

 

          4. The Op.no.2 filed its version almost reiterating the contention taken by the Op.no.1. The Op.no.2 admits that the Complainant approached it for the purpose of repair. On examining the said car, they found with regard to the hydrostatic lock. In this context, they were informed the repair cost. Instead of responding, the Complainant was keep mum and approached this forum to seek relief on the baseless ground. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on its part.

 

          5. The Complainant to substantiate his case, power of attorney holder of the Complainant filed affidavit evidence. The Complainant produced 1 to 5 documents at the first instance and thereafter filed memo dtd.11.03.2014 and produced 2 documents. But these documents are not marked, but any how the contents of these documents will be referred while recording the findings. Asst.Manager of Op.no.1 filed affidavit evidence so also the In-charge of service of Op.no.2 filed affidavit evidence and not got marked any documents. The Complainant as well as the Op.no.1 filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of Op.no.1 & 2 as alleged, if so whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for ?
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

7.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          8. Point no.1: The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that the Complainant has purchased the said car in the month of June 2007 from the Op.no.1. It is also not in dispute that on 10.08.2013, the said car was brought to Op.no.2 for the purpose of repair. It is also not in dispute that the Op.no.2 after examining the car, noticed that damage to the engine was due to hydrostatic lock. For better understanding, referred below the technical information about hydrostatic lock:

Hydrostatic lock (Hydrolock)

Hydro-lock occurs when a vehicle is driven through sufficiently deep or splashing water causing water to enter into the engine through air in-take duct. The incompressibility of water inside combustion chamber causes damage to cylinder head and engine assembly of the vehicle.

Fuel injected vehicles have the air intake located in the engine compartment. The objective of this air intake is to draw cool air into the engine. Unfortunately, when driving through sufficiently deep standing or splashing water, engine vacuum from the intake stroke will suck water in to the engine, particularly if the ink-take is submerged. This is further explained below,

The engine is a four-stroke-cycle engine. The four ‘strokes’ are intake, compression, power, and exhausted. The compression directly follows intake. The intake stroke occurs during (generally) downward movement with the intake vale open. This causes an air-gas mixture to be drawn into the cylinder. At the bottom of the intake stroke, the cylinder volume above the piston is at its greatest. During the compression stroke the piston moves upward, reducing the cylinder volume above the piston until the piston reaches its upper travel limit. At this point, the cylinder volume is at its smallest. Under normal conditions, the air-fuel mixture is basically gaseous in nature and is therefore compressible. But in case of entry of water which is incompressible through air intake the cylinder volume is reduced to where it is approximately the same as the volume of liquid in the cylinder, the piston will no longer be able to move upward. This is the ‘lock’ point…. depending upon specifics of operating conditions, engine design and general engine health, this sudden stopping of the piston by a non-compressible mass can cause damage ranging to bent valves, broken pistons and piston pins, connecting rods, crankshaft and ruin bearings and can crack or break cylinder heads and engine blocks.

The damage to a vehicle from ‘hydro-lock’ follows improper, rash and negligence use of a vehicle in nature described above and hence not covered under manufacturer’s warranty.

 

9. Referring to the said technical information, the learned counsel for the Op submits that the car was purchased in April 2007 and not in June 2007 as stated by the Complainant and the Complainant has run the car for 6 years without facing any problem with the car.  This itself indicates and evident that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Further submits that Op.no.2 also informed that the Complainant had not got the service of the car at proper interval at Skoda authorized dealers. The serving of the car was not carried out as per Skoda specified kms. The Complainant had got the car serviced at 82,719 kms on 11.01.2013 and the car was due for next service at 97719 kms or within one year, which ever was earlier. The Complainant had not taken the car for its service till 100892 kms as on 17.08.2013 and it was noticed that the car may have been serviced at a local garage as the coolant used for the engine was not as per Skoda specification. Further submits that the Op.no.2 further informs that the oil filters was changed and replaced by non-genuine part and the same did not match the standards set by manufacturer. Further submits that the Op.no.2 also informed that certain parts in the car were replaced by non-genuine parts. Consequently, the engine temperature has over shot the working temperature resulting in damage to the engine and further triggering in engine burst due to expansion of internal pressure in cylinder and not due to any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the Complainant. We find there is a considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops for the simple reasons that this fact is not denied by the Complainant. Further submits that, the Op.no.2 informs the Op.no.1 that it has notified to the Complainant on 23.09.2013 stating that they have received the technical report and sought for Complainant’s approval to carry out necessary repairs. Op.no.2 further informs that the Complainant remained silent till 22.10.2013 and on 23.10.2013 he wrote a letter to Op.no.2 that he will approach the appropriate forum which appears to be after thought. Over all submission of the learned counsel for the Ops is that, the car has travelled more than one lakh kilometers and does not suffer from any manufacturing defect nor has there been any deficiency in services rendered by Op.no.1 & 2. The consequential damage to the vehicle was due to hydrostatic lock and not because of manufacturing defect. Further submits that the said car is not covered under warranty. Hence the Ops are not able to repair the car under warranty.  We find there is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops with reference to the technical information about the hydrostatic lock as stated in para 6 of the version of Op.no.1. We come to the conclusion that the said car was purchased about 6 years back as on the date of alleged fire smoke as stated in para 5 of the complaint. Further the said car was not under the warranty period. It is also noticed that the said car was not periodically served which can be seen on going through the contents of the para 6 of the version of the Op.no.1. No specification has been followed by the Complainant in respect of its servicing with regard to the replacement of the genuine parts. Further the technical report goes to show that the said car needs repair for which the Op.no.2 has informed the repair cost for which the Complainant has denied. It is not the case of the Complainant that the Op.no.2 is not in a position to get repair the said car. As such we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of Ops. We also noticed that there is no any kind of manufacturing defect in the said car. The said car appears to be mishandled, which leads for the complications. Hence the Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought for. Accordingly we answered point no.1 in the negative.  

         

10. Point no.2: In the result we passed the following.

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.

 

2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 11^th December of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Mahesha.H, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

	Original Special power of attorney dtd.31.01.2014
Doc.no.1	RC
Doc.no.2	Service proof
Doc.no.3	Job card dtd.10.08.13
Doc.no.4	Email correspondence
Doc.no.5	Legal notice dtd.17.12.13 along with original postal acknowledgement
Doc.no.6	Reply notice dtd.06.02.2014
Doc.no.7	Retail invoice dtd.16.06.12

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Deepak.N, who being the Asst., Manager After sales of Op.no.1 company was examined. 

Sri.S.H.Sharma, who being the in-charge of service of Op.no.2 company was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT