Haryana

StateCommission

A/105/2016

CHEVROLET SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.YADAV

03 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No.105 & 267 of 2016

Date of Institution: 03.02.2016 & 30.03.2016  

                                     Date of Decision: 03.05.2018. 

 

Appeal No.105 of 2016

 

M/s. Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, registered office/works, Block-B, Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-289351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat, India, through its Vice-President Mr. Sumit Sawhney.

 

….Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar son of Sarjeet Singh, resident of House No.153, Village Kankrola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

 

….Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Aravali Auto Limited, Showroom-cum-Workshop, Plot No.66, IDC, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001, through its Managing Director.

 

….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

Appeal No.267 of 2016

 

M/s Aravali Auto Limited, Showroom-cum-Workshop, Plot No.66, IDC, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

 

          ….Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar son of Sarjeet Singh, resident of House No.153, Village Kankrola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

 

 

….Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s. Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, registered office/works, Block-B, Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-289351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat, India, through its Vice-President.

 

                                             ….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

 

 

Present:     Shri Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for appellant-opposite party No.2.

                   None for the respondent No.1-complainant.

                   Shri Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.2-opposite party No.1.

 

                  

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals No.105 & 267 of 2017 as they are arising out of common order dated 18.12.2015.

2.      As per complainant i.e. Sunil Kumar, he purchased car in question from opposite party (in short ‘OP’) No.1 i.e. M/s. Aravali Auto Limited on 14.05.2012 with a warranty of 03 years or 45000 kilometers whichever was earlier. After one and half year when car travelled 34000 kilometers, it started giving different sound. He took the vehicle to service centre of OP No.1, but, the defects could not be removed. Ultimately he took vehicle to OP No.1 on 11.09.2013 for repairs and they charged Rs.86,949/- from him, which was altogether wrong because vehicle was within warranty.

3.      As OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, so, only OP No.2 i.e. M/s Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited filed reply, controverting his averments that it relationship with OP No.1 was on principle to principle basis. When problem of hydraulic lock was found, which occurred due to driving in water-logged area. It was clear violation of terms and conditions of warranty and that is why it was not liable to pay any compensation.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.12.2015 and directed as under:

“….OPs to refund Rs.60,000/- to the complainant in lump sum out of said Bill dated 11.09.2013 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.”

 

 5.     Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred afore-mentioned appeals.

6.      Arguments of counsel for appellants/OPs were heard because nobody appeared on behalf of complainant.   

7.      From the perusal of vehicle history card (Annexure-6), it is clear that water entered in the vehicle, due to which problem of hydraulic lock had occurred. From the perusal of clause 3 of warranty limitations, it is clear that if any vehicle is being driven in water-logged roads then the company will not liable to pay any compensation. For ready reference, relevant limitation is reproduced as under:

“3. Warranty Limitations

f.       Damage caused by driving the vehicle under severe conditions such as un-pliable or water-logged roads, in races or rallies.”

In this way, when the vehicle was driven in water-logged area, OP No.2 was not liable to pay compensation in any manner because it was specifically opined by learned District Forum in impugned order dated 18.12.2015 that there was no manufacturing defects in this vehicle. Furthermore, if vehicle was brought to workshop of OP No.1, it does not mean that this defect was not there at that time because as per complaint there was unusual sound in engine. It shows that problem was there which is mentioned in vehicle history card (Annexure-6). Complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly directed the OPs to pay amount in question. So impugned order dated 18.12.2015 is set aside. Appeals No.105 & 267 of 2016 are accepted and complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing both appeals be refunded to appellants/OPs against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

9.      Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No.267 of 2016.

 

Announced 03.05.2018.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

D.R.