State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dinesh Sancheti vs Mohan Motor Distributors Pvt. Ltd. on 3 February, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/348/2014 ( Date of Filing : 26 Sep 2014 ) 1. Dinesh Sancheti S/o Late Ratan Lal Sancheti, Prop., Pooja Apparels, Harrington Mansion, 8, Ho Chi Minh Sarani(Ground Floor), Suite no.126, Kolkata -700 071. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Mohan Motor Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Arupota, EM Bypass, opposite- Science City, Kolkata -700 105. 2. Mohan Motor Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 9, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 017. 3. Volkswagon Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. 3rd & 4th Floor, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala- Andheri East, Mumbai -400 093. 4. Audi India Head office-3, North Avenue, Level-3, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051, Maharashtra, India. 5. Top Gear Sales Pvt. Ltd. 94, Hem Chandra Naskar Road, Kolkata -700 010. 6. IOCL(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) 3079/3, J B Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110 049 & also Indian Oil Bhavan, 2nd floor, Central Wing 2, Gariahat Rd.(S), Dhakuria, Kolkata-700 068. 7. Auto-Fill In (Petrol Pump) Indian Oil, 32, Circus Avenue, Kolkata - 700 017. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Ms. Jayoti Mukherjee Ms. S .Bhattacharjee , Advocate for the Complainant 1 Ms. Soumi Dan.Mr. Sabyasachi Santra., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Mr. Prabhat Shraff., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Mr. Samiran Chakraborty., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Mr. Prithwiraj Sarkar., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Dated : 03 Feb 2022 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
In a nut-shell, the fact of Complaint Case is that the Complainant had purchased Audi car being Audi A-4, upon payment of the sum of Rs. 22,04,430.00 on 24.04.2011. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are the authorized service provider for Audi car. Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 are the manufacturers of such car. Opposite Party No. 5 is the dealer from which Complainant had purchased the said car. From the very beginning the engine of the said car was defective and was giving problems like loud humming noise was coming from the engine, upper brake light not working, hood shocker not working etc. After two years of purchase of such vehicle, the problems in respect of the said vehicle were such that it required replacement of necessary parts. The vehicle in question was having problem with brake, cooling and was also having noise from rear side of the body. The Complainant sent such vehicle to the Opposite Party No. 1 and had to pay a sum of Rs. 58,051.00 for maintenance of such vehicle. There was problem with the engine and also belt of the brake down. On 10th February, 2014 the Complainant had to spend a sum of Rs. 97,723.00. Again in the month of March, 2014, the Complainant had to spent a sum of Rs. 24,958.00 for repairs. The problems in respect of such vehicle were continuing and in addition thereto, the vehicle was knocking as well as loud humming noise was coming from the engine of the said vehicle. The Opposite Party No. 1 proposed to change the entire vehicle fuel pump, pressure pump, injectors, pressure pipe etc. on the allegation that the fuel used in the said vehicle was contaminated with water and hence all fuelling equipement have been damaged. The estimation given by the Opposite Party No. 1 for repairing the vehicle in question was an astronomical figure of Rs. 5,21,718.88. The Complainant had lodged a complaint with all concerned. However there was no response. To resolve dispute the Complainant had tested the fuel and found that the quality of fuel provided by the Proforma Respondents are absolutely correct and has no anomaly. It is a matter of record that the manufacturer itself admitted that there are defects in Audi card and they have recalled 3.21 lakhs of card in India. Finally the Complainant filed this case for replacement of the vehicle i.d. payment with interest etc. Though the case was heard ex parte, at the final stage, but all the OPs filed their respective WVs at the initial stage. The substance of their objection is as follows:-
The car was brought in the name of Pooja Apparels, therefore the claim is not maintainable.
Diesel was adulterated and water contained more than permissible limit.
If the said vehicle was really defective, such knocking would not have occurred all of a sudden afer more than three years of purchase thereof and after it has plied for more than 44,000 kilometres.
The damage caused to its fuel pump and injection system is solely attributable to the contaminated fuel supplied by the Opposite Party No. 7.
Complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and therefore the demand of replacement of the said vehicle is completely exaggerated, preposterous and uncalled for.
Now the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble NCDRC over the matter of 'Manufacturing Defect' is as follows:-
Maruti Udyog Ltd -Vs- Susheel Kr Gabgotra & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 644 "The manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the car or refund its price merely because some defect appears which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced under warranty."
M/s Roshan Motors Pvt Ltd -Vs- Sanket Tangya & Anr 2020(4) CPR 452 (NC) "A person purchases a vehicle for peace of his mind and it is expected that at least in warranty period which in this case was 3 years , vehicle would not give any serious trouble and would perform well."
Maruti Udyog Ltd -Vs- Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Ors III(2009) CPJ 229(NC) "Manufacturing defect is more than an ordinary defect, which may be result of an unintended aspect of finished product due to error or omission in assembly or manufacture of the vehicle at the factory during manufacture process. The allegation of manufacturing defect in goods can only be adjudicated on the basis of inspection report of appropriate laboratory."
Tata Motors Ltd & Anr -Vs- Chetan Gill & Anr IV (2020) CPJ 127 (NC) "Vehicle having been inspected by an expert and he having found several defects in vehicle, it would be for him to verify whether all those defects stands removed or not--This would be fair and reasonable not only to the complainant but also to the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.--In case vehicle is not repaired to complete satisfaction of expert in terms of this order, complainant shall be entitled to refund the entire amount which he paid for vehicle."
Jose Philip Mampillil-Vs- Premier Automobiles Ltd & Anr (2004)2 SCC 278 "It is shameful that a defective car was sought to be sold as a brand new car. Dealer and manufacturer is jointly and severally liable."
In view of the item No. 3 above, replacement of the vehicle at this stage is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Secondly, there is some defect in the said car. O.P No. 1 also filed estimation over the issue i.e. Annexure E and F (Page 21-23). So keeping an eye in the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Court and NCDRC, OP No. 1 is directed to remove those defects as mentioned in Annexure E & F within sixty (60) days from this order.
In case the vehicle is not defect free within stipulated time, Complainant shall be entitled to refund the amount which he paid for vehicle subject to statutory deduction and depreciation charges. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER