Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/12

Kamalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Speed Motors & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 12 of 21.01.2015

                                 Date of decision               :  23.06.2015

 

Kamalbir Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of House No. 65, Ranjit Avenue, Near Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                                ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1.  Speed Motors, NH-21, Village Chhoti Gandhon, on Rupnagar-

     Chandigarh Road, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its M.D.

2.  Speed Motors, Plot No. 815, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh

     (U.T.) through its M.D. 

3.  Fiat Group Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as FCA India

    Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 20.03.2015), Benefice, 3^rd Floor,

     Mathura Dass Mill Compound, Lower Parel West, Mumbai -400013

    through its M.D.

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Paramjeet Singh Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Satpal Singh, Authorized Agent, for Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2

Sh. Manpreet Singh Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 3

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Kamalbir Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To deliver a new car in lieu of the car purchased by him or in the alternative, to refund him the full value of the said car paid by him,

 

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him,

 

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 19.06.2014, he had purchased a new car make Fiat Punto Activa, colour white (diesel) bearing Chassis No. MCA11814E07054252CJZ, Engine No. 0478215, which now stands registered vide No.PB-12-V-9394, from the O.P. No.1. Since the time of its purchase, it started giving problem, as it used to carry on left side, due to which, its left side rear tyres have been damaged. He had complained about the same and requested to the O.Ps. many times to rectify the said fault, but they after making minor maintenance, delivered the same to him time &again and no permanent solution of the problem has been made, which still persists. At the time of its purchase, the O.Ps. had obtained the premium amount from him for getting bumper to bumper insurance, but they have only obtained the general insurance of the said car. They had also obtained the amount of HSRP plates from him, but no slip was supplied to him. Due to non-rectification of the fault, he was unable to use his car and could not get the HSRP Plates fitted, due to the non-supply of the same by the O.Ps. He had approached & requested the O.Ps., a number of times and brought into their notice that even after service of the car in question from their service station, the fault occurred in it could not be rectified and within one month, its left rear tyre started to have uneven wear & tear. Thereafter, a call was also made on the Customer Care Centre of the O.Ps. on 06.12.2014 and the vehicle was also taken to the O.Ps., but of  no use. He could not use the car as it suffers from problem, right from the beginning of its purchase. Its lock system also does not work properly, therefore, for the last one month, when the instant complaint was filed, he had parked the said car in a garage, which has been taken by him on rent @ Rs.5000/- per month. Even on 18.1.2015, an official of the O.Ps., namely Sh. Arun Rajput, visited him and checked the car to detect fault in it and felt that it was having some problem. The O.Ps. have been harassing him, in one way or the other, and have not rectified the fault in the said car, which amounts to deficiency in service, due to which he has been suffering huge loss, harassment and humiliation. Hence, this complaint.

 

 3.               On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint being misconceived & without any merits deserves outright rejection; that filing of the instant complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the instant complaint; that adjudication upon the present complaint requires leading of detailed voluminous evidence, which is not possible in the summary jurisdiction vested with this Forum, as such, the matter be relegated to the civil courts; that the present complaint has not been filed in proper format, as there is no allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the answering O.Ps. and that it has not been properly verified. On merits, it is stated that before taking delivery of the car in question, the complainant had fully checked the same. He had never made any complaint. After a gap of 4 months from the date of its purchase i.e. 19.06.2014, it was only on 21.10.2014, when he had brought his car for the first free service. After that, he had again visited to the workshop of the answering O.Ps. on 1.11.2014 for adjustment of the head lights only. At that time also, he had not complained about wearing of the tyres. Then on 13.12.2014, he again brought his car to the workshop of the answering O.Ps. with the complaint of wheel alignment, which was done on warranty basis. He had sent an email on 13.12.2014 to the answering O.Ps., in which he himself  had written that before service of the vehicle everything was working very fine, which clearly means that there was no problem in his vehicle at the time of its purchase. He had never paid any amount on account of insurance of the car in question; rather first year’s insurance was given free of cost by the answering O.Ps. If he wants to update his insurance policy, he is free to approach the concerned insurance company and the answering O.Ps. have no role to play for the said purpose. The answering O.Ps. had fulfilled their duty by depositing the fees for HSRP plate alongwith the registration charges of the said car with the Registration Authority, Ropar on 11.7.2014. The slips were duly handed over to the complainant. It was his duty to take his vehicle to the said Registration Authority to get HSRP plate affixed thereon, as the same is not to be supplied by the answering O.Ps. Moreover, as per knowledge of the answering O.Ps. presently, the Punjab Government has suspended the fixation of HSRP plates in Punjab due to some reasons, as such, there is no problem in plying the car with normal number plates. It is stated that there was problem in the car from the date of its purchase, as alleged by the complainant. He had never complained about the lock system of the said car. If there is any such problem, he may bring his car to the workshop of the answering O.Ps. and the same would be rectified. It is admitted that on 18.1.2015, representative of the answering O.Ps., namely Sh. Arun Rajput, Regional Service Manager (Fiat) had inspected the car in question, but it is stated that all the problems were rectified there & then and the complainant was asked to bring his car at Chandigarh workshop on 19.1.2015 for re-inspection and for resolving the issue, if any, but he did not turn up, meaning thereby that there was no problem in the car. He was again requested through a written communication vide letter dated 21.1.2015 to visit workshop of the answering O.Ps., but he did not bring his car in their workshop to resolve the problem in it, if any. There has been, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the same be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

 

4.                The O.P. No. 3 filed a separate written version stating, at the outset, that the name of the said Company has been changed from Fiat Group Automobiles India Private Limited to FCA India Automobiles Private Limited w.e.f. 20^th March, 2015. Preliminary objections have been taken to the effect; that the present complaint is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and  deserves outright dismissal; that the same has been filed just on the basis of conjectures & surmises and is wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false, frivolous and a fragrant abuse of process of law; that the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P., therefore, no case is made out against it under the provisions of the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary costs; the the complainant is debarred from claiming anything from the answering O.P.; that the complaint/allegation of the complainant about the alleged defects in the car from the very beginning is not supported by any opinion/ report of an expert/approved laboratory, which is necessary as per the provisions of Sec. 13 (1)(c) of the Act; that the answering O.P. has provided the vehicle in question in a perfect condition, as such, it is not liable to compensate the complainant for any amount, much less as alleged in the complaint; that there is no privity of contract between Speed Motors and the answering O.P. and the answering O.P. cannot be held liable for so called deficiency in service, if any, on the part of the servicing dealer; that merely mentioning of a number of complaints by the complainant/customer does not per se indicate the actual existence of those complaints or problems and it is the duty of the authorized service centre to look into each & every complaint/apprehension/fear expressed and to verify the actual existence of the same. If the complaint made is genuine or problem exists, then to rectify the same, but the answering O.P. is not responsible and cannot be held liable for any alleged grievance of the complaint. On merits, it is denied that the car in question had any defect, as alleged by the complainant, or any issue related to left side and its tyres having been damaged. It is stated that each & every car manufactured at the plant of the answering O.P. goes through the stringent quality checks by the Quality Department before taking delivery of the car in question, the complainant and only when the vehicle is found to be absolutely perfect in all parameters, the same is off-loaded the assembly line and road tested on all types of testing tracks built according to the international standards. Only such vehicles which pass the rigorous quality checks are finally dispatched/sold to the distributors/dealers. Therefore, it is not only false to allege but also practically impossible for any customer to get defective vehicle delivered. The answering O.P. is a customer centric organization and has always assisted the complainant and for maintenance of the car had also taken the same to the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2. The answering O.P. is a car manufacturing company and not insurance company, as such, is not liable to issue insurance for the vehicle in question to the complainant. If he wants to update his insurance policy, he is free to approach the concerned insurance company and the answering O.P. has no role to play for the said purpose. The answering O.P. has also no role to play in fitting of HSRP plates in the vehicle, which is the duty of the complainant and the said plates are to be supplied by the Department of Registration Authority, Ropar and not by the answering O.P. It is reiterated that the car in question has no manufacturing defect and the complainant has filed the present false & frivolous complaint for the reasons best known to him and has failed to establish his case. He had never complained about the lock system of the said car. If there is any such defect in it, he may approach the service centre of the answering O.P. for doing the needful. It is further stated that on 18.1.2015, the Regional Service Manager of the answering O.P., namely Sh. Arun Rajput, alongwith O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 had inspected the car in question of the complainant and rectified all the problems in it, there & then. The complainant had used the car in a rash & negligent manner. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get a new car or in the alternative to get full value of the car in question or any other amount as prayed for in the complaint, because the answering O.P. had sold the said car in a good & best condition and has acted as per the terms of the sale of the said car and has never committed deficiency in service. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the same be dismissed, qua the answering O.P. with punitive & exemplary costs.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex. C16 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Satpal Singh, the authorized agent of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2, tendered his affidavit Ex. OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-6 and closed the evidence, whereas the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsh Mishra, Head Legal & Company Secretary and authorized representative, Ex. OP-3/A, photocopies of documents Ex. OP3/B & Ex. OP3/C and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No. 3 and also Sh. Satpal Singh, Authorized Agent, for the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the car in question, which the complainant had purchased from the O.P. No.1 on 19.06.2014, was giving problem, since from the very date of its purchase, as while plying the same, it used to pull towards left side, due to which the left hand side rear tyre got damaged. The lock-system of the said car is also not working properly. He took his car to the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 for many times, for rectification of the said problems, but inspite of best efforts made by their engineer, the said problems could not be rectified. Therefore, he is entitled to get a new car or in the alternative, for the refund of the sale consideration paid by him.  He further submitted that the O.P. No.1 had charged premium from the complainant for getting his car insured under Bumper to Bumper policy, whereas it had given a general insurance policy for the same. The O.Ps. had also charged fee for HSRP plate, but have not supplied the same till date. The said acts of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service on their part, therefore, the complaint be allowed and the reliefs, as prayed for in it, be granted to the complainant.

 

8.                In rebuttal, Sh. Satpal Singh, Authorized Agent of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, submitted that the complainant had brought his car for its free service to the workshop of the O.Ps. No.  1 & 2, for the first time only on 21.10.2014 i.e. after about four months of its purchase, as is evident from work order dated 21.10.2014, Ex.C2. Thereafter, he brought the same to their workshop on 01.11.2014, for adjustment of headlights. On 13.12.2014, he again brought his car to their workshop for wheel alignment and the needful was done free of cost, as the car was within warranty period. The allegations of the complainant that the car in question was defective at the time of its purchase itself, gets falsified from the email dated 13.12.2014, Ex.C10, wherein he himself had stated that before the service of the car on 13.12.2014, everything was working very fine. He further submitted that the Speed Motors had attended the complainant properly even during the pendency of the complaint and did the needful as is evident from the copy of Work Order dated 16.5.2015(inadvertently the date written as 16.5.2014), Ex.OP-5. From the Requisition Slip dated 16.5.2015 (Ex. OP-6), it is evident that the front Shock Absorber was replaced without charging any amount for the same. Thereafter, the complainant had never complained about any defect in his car. Said Sh. Satpal Singh, the Authorized Agent of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 further submitted that the complainant had not paid any amount for getting the said car insured, as its insurance was got done by the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 of their own. The sum of Rs.369/-, which was charged from the complainant for HSRP plates, was deposited with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department by the Speed Motors, as is evident from the receipt dated 11.7.2014, placed on record alongwith Registration Details (Ex. OP-2). Thereafter, it was the duty of the complainant to get the said HSRP plates affixed by contacting the officials of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 and the grievance of the complainant to that effect is also without any force.  Further, the complainant had never complained about any problem in lock-system of the said car and if, he is facing any problem of lock-system, he may bring his car to the workshop of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 and the said problem would be rectified. The complainant, thus, having failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2, the complaint filed by him be dismissed with heavy exemplary costs.

 

9.                 The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 submitted that the complainant has failed to prove by placing on record any expert opinion/report to the effect that the car purchased by him suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect, therefore, question for replacement of the car with a new one or for refund of its price does not arise at all. The insurance policy, if any, was got issued by the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 in respect of the car in question of the complainant, no role was played by the O.P. No.3, for issuance of the same. The O.P. No. 3 was also not to play any role in getting the HSRP plates issued by the Department concerned for the car in question. He further submitted that the complainant had never complained about any problem in lock-system of the said car and if, he has any problem in lock-system of his car, he may bring his car to the workshop of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2, who are ready to rectify the said problem. He prayed that the complaint filed against the O.P. No. 3, being a frivolous one, be dismissed with exemplary costs.

 

10.              Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the car in question on 19.06.2014. As per invoice dated 22.10.2014 (Ex. C-5), the said car was within warranty for the period from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2017. From the copy of Work Order Ex. C2, it is evident that the first service of the car in question was done on 21.10.2014, when it had covered a mileage of 4890 KMs. From the invoice dated 22.10.2014 (Ex. C4), it is evident that the wheel alignment was done, for which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.488/-. From the copy of another invoice of even date (Ex. C5), it is evident that right hand front fender of the said car was repaired and painted, for which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5619/-. From the copy of tax invoice dated 13.12.2014 (Ex. C6), it is evident that it was for the first time when the complainant had complained about left hand side pulling of the car, which caused wearing of the rear left hand side tyre, when the car had covered the mileage of 7044 KMs. Had there been any manufacturing defect in it, the use of the said car to that extent would not have been possible. Even in the email dated 13.12.2014 (Ex. C10), the complainant himself had admitted that before he had got his car serviced from Chandigarh Service Station of Speed Motors, few months back, his car was working properly. From the documents placed on record, it is evident that whenever the complainant had approached the O.Ps. for any service/removal of any defect in the said car, he was attended properly and the needful was done. Moreover, to prove his case that the said car suffered from manufacturing inherent defect, the complainant has not placed on record report of any person, specialized in the field of automobiles. With these facts & circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that his car suffered from any inherent manufacturing defect, beyond repair, therefore, the prayer made by him for replacement of the car with a new one or in alternative for refund of the price paid for the same cannot be accepted. We find support for this view taken from the cases titled ‘Jose Philip Mampilli v Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Another’, 1(2004) CPJ 9 (SC) and ‘Maruti Udyog Ltd. V. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr.’ II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the car or refund its price merely because some defects appeared, which could be rectified or defective parts could be replaced, under warranty.

 

11.              So far as the other grievance of the complainant that he had paid premium for getting the car in question insured under Bumper to Bumper policy, whereas the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 have supplied him a general insurance policy, is concerned, he has also not placed on record any documentary proof to that effect, thus, in the absence thereof, the said grievance of the complainant is also without any force.

 

12.              The next grievance of the complainant is that the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 had charged a sum of Rs.369/- from him as HRSP plates fees, but have not got affixed the same on his car till date. From the receipts Ex.C8, it is evident that the Speed Motors had deposited a sum of Rs.369/- for HRSP plates fee with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department on 11.7.2014. Thereafter, the HRSP plates were to be issued by the said Department and the complainant could have got affixed the same on his car from the said Department by showing the said receipt and no role was to played by the O.Ps. for the said purpose. Consequently, the said grievance of the complainant is also found to be without any force.

13.              So far as the other grievance of the complainant that lock-system of the said car is also defective, is concerned, he has not produced on record any documentary evidence to that effect, whereas it is the specific plea of the O.Ps. that he had never complained about the same to them and if, there is any problem in lock-system, he may bring his car to the workshop of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2, who will rectify the same.

 

14.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of any of the O.Ps. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against all the O.Ps. Accordingly, we dismiss the same, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

15.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 23.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.