Case No. 212/2022   

IN THE MATTER OF

Mohd. Noor Alam age about 43 years S/o Sri Kazi Naseer Ahmad R/o 4/1163 Maulana Azad Nagar Gali no.2 Line Par District Aligarh

                                                         V/s

1. Rajeev Chaba President & MD M G Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 10^th Floor, 32 Avenue Sani Khera Village Sector-15 Gurugram Hariyana 122022
2. Manager, M G Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Chandrpura, Ïndustrial Estate Halal District Panch Mahal Gujrat 389351
3. Manager, N.R.L. Pvt. Ltd. 404 Nagla pari Bypass Road Agra ,U.P.
4. Manager, N.R.L. Pvt. Ltd. G.T.Road Near Mahrawl Mod Aligarh    CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for following reliefs -

1. Op be directed to replace the old defective car by the new car or to pay its cost Rs.1776700 with interest @12% per annum.
2.  Op be directed to pay Rs. 200000 for physical and mental harassment.
3. Op be directed to Pay to Rs 20000 for litigation expenses.

2.  The Complainant has stated that the ops are authorized dealer of the car. Complainant had purchased a patrol car for Rs.1776700 on 29.11.2021 from op no.4 by the date 29.3.2022 the car had run only 3800 KM and when he was going on G.T. Road the car had stopped. The car was sent to the workshop, Agra. The car was returned by the date 14.4.2022. Thereafter the car had given noise and left the pickup and mileage was 4-5 KM per liter. On 13.7.2022 the car was again stopped on the way and the information was given to RSA and car was brought to Workshop at Agra in the loader of the company. The car was returned on 19.7.2022 after repairs but the engine noise was not removed and the car was sent to the company and is lying with the company. The car has the manufacturing defect which caused physical and mental agony to the complainant and it is deficiency in service.                         
3. Op no.1, 2 stated in WS that the car bearing no UP81 C 6292 was purchased by the complainant on 29.11.2021. The car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Complainant has not placed any evidence for proving alleged manufacturing defect. The car is manufactured by MG Motors and is tested in its facilities and undergoes pre delivery inspection. Having completely satisfied the ICAT certification is given for a vehicle to the road worthy before it is sold. On 29.3.2022 the car was reported to Agra dealership op no.3. There was an abnormal engine noise and defective wiper motor. There were also impurities in the fuel tank which was cleaned and fresh fuel was added. The engine oil was replaced and wiper motor was adjusted the car was ready to be returned to the complainant in perfect road worthy condition. The car was delivered to the complainant on 18.4.2022. The mileage of the car depends on multiple factors. The manual of the car provides tips for fuel efficiency. On 13.7.2022 car was reported to road side assistant of MG Motors for fuel system concern (Fuel leakage from engine compartment) and low pickup. The car was repaired at the service center of op no.3. The patrol pipe of the car was tightened, low pickup concern was resolved and abnormal engine noise was solved. The trial was done by technician and returned to complainant on 19.7.2022   in a perfect road worthy condition but the car was sent back to the service center of op no.4 on 25.7.2022 for abnormal engine noise from where car was sent to op no 3. On inspection it was found to be a normal car and was ready for delivery in a perfect road worthy condition but the complainant denied to take delivery of the same. Op no. 3 made several attempts to deliver the car to the complainant and car is lying in a perfect road worthy condition. The problem arose in the car due to actions of the complainant and lack of proper maintenance as well as poor driving habit and the car is in perfect road worthy condition and does not suffer any manufacturing defect.             
4. Op no.4 stated in WS that the car was brought to the service center and was returned after service. There was no engine noise and pickup was correct. The car is standing at the workshop in perfect condition and the complainant has been knowingly avoiding to take the delivery of the car.   
5. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
8. It is not disputed that the car was purchased by the complainant from the op no.4 for Rs.1776700 on 29.11.2021. After purchase, the car suddenly stopped on 29.3.2022 while running on G. T. Road, Aligarh and on complaint made by the complainant to op no.3 and 4 the car was brought to workshop of the op no.4 at Agra. Ops have admitted that the car was reported to Agra dealership op no.3 on 29.3.2022 and it was found that there was an abnormal engine noise and impurities in the fuel tank were cleaned and fresh fuel was added but the car again stopped on the way on 13.7.2022. On complaint made on RSA the car was brought to Agra Workshop through loader of the company. Op has admitted that the car was reported to RSA of MG Motor India Pvt. Ltd. on 13.7.2022 and it was found that there was problem of fuel leakage and low pickup which were solved and  abnormal engine noise was also solved. Complainant has stated that there was engine noise as it was earlier and the car was returned to the company. Ops have stated that the car is lying with the op no.3 and delivery of the car was not taken by the complainant despite of several attempts made by the op no.3. It is clear that the problem of engine noise could not be solved and car is lying with the op no.3. As per warranty letter issued by the ops the warranty of vehicle is three years and thus the car was within the period of warranty on 13.7.2022  when the car was undergoing the same problem of engine noise as it was earlier and the defect could not be removed within the period of warranty. As the defect of engine noise could be removed by the service center of ops and therefore it was incurable defect as being manufacturing defect. The only remedy of which is the replacement of the car no. UP81 C 6292 by the new car or to return its value Rs.1776700 with interest.                     
9. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
10.  We hereby direct the ops to replace the car no. UP81 C 6292 by the new car or to pay its value Rs.1776700 to the complainant with pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum. Ops are  also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 10000.  
11. Op shall comply with the directions within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.