Date of Filing:22.02.2023

Date of Disposal:17.05.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

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

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainants files a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 with a direction to OP to repay invoice amount paid for vehicle m legal expenses and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

This is the case of the complainant that the complainantis an employee of Microsoft India R & D Pvt. Ltd. and the OP is Tafe Access Ltd. dealer for Skoda car. The complainant purchased a Skoda Kushaq Car from the dealer on 20.04.2022 through a car lease plan option provided by Microsoft India R and D Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent to the purchasing the car same was registered in the name of the company and the complainant is the sole owner of the car by repaying its lease amount. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle the OP was given guarantee/warranty for the period of 4+2 years and also promised to replaceany defect and also assuring to replace the defective part from the said vehicle. It is also assured by OP that if there was any necessity for the replacement of any manufacturing defect then they undertake to replace the same without any additional cost. On 7^th January 2023 when the complainant took his car for wheel alignment after 7000 Kms. During the wheel alignment work it was noticed by the alignment engineer informed that the front left wheel was having lateral movements and the engineer told to get it check at the service centre and there after on 11.01.2023 when the complainant approached the OP for its car service, they have confirmed that wheel bearing and it’s hub and housing to be damaged and by replacing the same and by carrying out repairs, the OP service centre has raised the invoice for Rs.10,669/-. At that point of time when the complainant sought for the warranty claim, the OP has declined to give the benefit of warranty. Upon which the complainant was forced to pay the said amount and got released the said car from the OP service centre. Aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint seeking reliefs as sought in the complaint.

3. Notice to OP-duly served, remained absent and placed            ex-parte.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of his contention.

5.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and there by prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-  That the complainant is an employee of Microsoft India  R & D Pvt. Ltd.,. That the complainant purchased a Skoda Kushaq Car from the dealer on 20.04.2022 through a car lease plan option provided by Microsoft India R and D Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent to the purchasing the car same was registered in the name of the company and the complainant is the sole owner of the car by repaying its lease amount. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle the OP was given guarantee/warranty for the period of 4+2 years and also promised to replace any defect and also assuring to replace the defective part from the said vehicle. It is also assured by OP that if there was any necessity for the replacement of any manufacturing defect then they undertake to replace the same without any additional cost.

9. On 7^th January 2023 when the complainant took his car for wheel alignment after 7000 Kms. During the wheel alignment work it was noticed by the alignment engineer informed that the front left wheel was having lateral movements and the engineer told to get it check at the service centre and thereafter on 11.01.2023 when the complainant approached the OP for its car service, they have confirmed that wheel bearing and it’s hub and housing to be damaged and by replacing the same and by carrying out repairs, the OP service centre has raised the invoice for Rs.10,669/-. At that point of time when the complainant sought for the warranty claim, the OP has declined to give the benefit of warranty. Upon which the complainant was forced to pay the said amount and got released the said car from the OP service centre.

10. On perusal of the chief examination affidavit, it is found that the complainant has reproduced the complaint assertions as against the OP, in so far as denial of warranty benefit and also on perusal of the annexure documents A1 to A33, these documents clearly supports that whatever the complainant allegations which iss made by the complainant against the OP is to held as proved fact beyond all reasonable doubt. When the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant as it is covered under warranty clause as on the date of replacement of damaged parts of the car. Despite of coverage of warranty clause, the OP has declined to render the benefit of warranty clause. This act and omission of the OP clearly goes to show that they have rendered a deficit service to the complainant while rendering service. It is also observed that the OP has clearly violated the terms of warranty clause and by refusing to give benefit of warranty when they have clearly violated the warranty terms and conditions. This act and omission of the OP clearly attracts the deficiency of service on their part.

11. It is observed that the Hon’ble National consumer commission, New Delhi, in the case between Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual V/s Dr.Nishi Gupta, which is reported in CPR 2018(1) page 325. In this case the Hon’ble National commission held that “non-filing of written version in the complaint which amounts to admission of complaint allegations”.

12. The guidelines of the above rule aptly applicable to the case as the OP by remaining absent, they have placed ex-parte in the complaint. In the absence of the version, affidavit from their side whatever the complaint allegations is to be held as true facts. On this legal inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant as against OP, that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

13. In view of the above discussion, the Point No.1 we answer Partly in Affirmative.

14. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                           ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.

2. The OP is   directed to refund Rs.10,699/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint  till refund is made  to the complainant.

3. The OP is   further directed to pay a sum of  Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation charges. OP fails to comply the order within 45 days from the date of order, compensation amount and cost of litigation shall  carry interest at 6% p.a. for non-compliance of the order.

4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 17^th May 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit: Sri Deepak.R.-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*