State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Bala vs Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on 26 September, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 26.9.2012 First Appeal 824/2009 (Arising out of the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 119/2008) Smt. Raj Bala, W/o Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, r/o Flat No.202, Ashirwad Enclave, Plot No.104, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi- 110 092 .........Appellant VS 1. 2. The Managing Director, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-1/1, Snehdra Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-431201 M/s Sai Automobiles, (A Division of M/s Abhishek International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110 092 ...Respondents CORAM V.K.GUPTA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MRS. SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
V.K.GUPTA, MEMBER
1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 of the District Forum (East) refusing to refund the amount of Rs.12,86,316/- as the price of the vehicle and inadequate compensation.
2. The brief facts are that the complainant purchased a Scoda Car on 28.3.2008 and paid a price of Rs.11,97,269/- and the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant as DL-13C-0940 after taking the loan from the State Bank of Hyderabad, The details of which are given in para-6 of the complaint. The said new car has the following manufacturing/technical defects:
i) Tinting of vehicle towards left side i.e. instability in steering wheel, making the driving very risky and unstable
ii) Gross bubbling in clutches of the vehicle thereby making the driving of the car very uncomfortable and tiring.
3. The defects were brought to the notice of the OP No.2 and the said vehicle were taken to the workshop 5 times during the period from 1.4.2008 to 25.5.2008, but these defects have not been removed.
The job card dated 11.4.2008 indicates the manufacturing defect in the CASTER causing instability of steering wheel.
The complainant wrote many letters to the OPs for the removal of the defects and change the vehicle, but nothing was done and the complainant is deprived of the use of the vehicle and claims the refund of Rs.12,86,316/-, compensation of the financial loss of Rs.15 lakhs, Rs.10 lakh for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5200/- as the expenses incurred by him for repair.
4. Both the OPs/respondents have filed the written statement jointly and the written statement of OP/respondent ANo.2 was adopted by OP/Respondent No.1 and denied all the allegations. According to them, the vehicle is a new one and has covered only 1400 kms as on 25.5.2008 and since then the vehicle was being part with OP/Respondent No.2. the vehicle is perfectly fit and roadworthy. The complainant was misreading the CASTER relating to the measurement of the wheels. The defect in the caster was denied by both the OPs/Respondents.
The wheel alignment thereof manifests compliance to required and accepted parameters inter alia in terms of caster, camber and toe. It is contended by both the OPs//respondents that a direction may be issued that the vehicle be examined by an independent expert and the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief.
5. The District Forum vide order dated 12.10.2009 refused to refund the amount of the price of car, however, directed the OP/respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as the litigation charges.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The Counsel for the Appellant very vehemently submitted that the complainant had paid Rs.12,86,316/- for the purchase of vehicle, which was paid to the OP and within a period of 8 to 10 days of the purchase the defect came out which have been mentioned in para-9 of the complainant which relating to tinting of vehicle towards left side i.e. instability in steering wheel, making the driving very risky and unstable and gross bubbling in clutches of the vehicle thereby making the driving of the car very uncomfortable and tiring which are part of the manufacturing defect, therefore, the District Forum committee grave error in refusing the price of the vehicle. On the other hand, it has been argued by the counsel for the respondent that there is no evidence at all that these two defects, as herein above mentioned by the complainant, are the manufacturing defects. It is further argued that whenever the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the respondent, the defects were removed.
In this case, the expert opinion was sought, which was submitted by the expert namely Shri Lajpat Rai Munjal on 30.5.2012. This report clearly goes to show that the expert has found no fault of bubbling in clutches of the vehicle while test drive to make it uncomfortable or tiring while driving. This expert further recommended the service before the car is to be on road. The expert further found that the reading of the wheel alignment report i.e. its Camber, Caster Toin/out found correct and within the recommended range, hereby ruling out of any possibility of the any manufacturing defect.
It may be stated that the car was driver for a long distance at different speeds and matching the alignment reports acquired from two different machines installed at dealers workshop as per specification of the car manufacturer, there is no danger of any accident while driving it due to misalignment on the wheels as no sideway drag in any direction was encountered while driving it and the steering was also sable and the wheels are fully aligned. No tyre wear out pattern was observed even after the car had been driven upto 1625 kms til the time of 2nd alignment at Okhla.
It is an admitted case that whenever the slight defects were pointed out by the complainant they were removed immediately as the car is within the period of warranty.
The Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on R.Raja Rao vs Mysore Auto Agencies and Anr. II(2006) CPJ 64(NC) wherein it was held that if the trouble started within few days of the purchase of the vehicle and proceeds even after several repairs, the dealer and the manufacturer jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest. The reliance was also placed by the Counsel for the Appellant on Nachiket P. Shir Gaonkar vs. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Anr II (2008) CPJ 308 (NC) wherein it has been held that in case of the manufacturing defect, the manufacturer and the supplier are jointly and severally liable to pay price of the vehicle along with interest.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent has cited the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Sushil Kumar Gangotra and others II 2006 CPJ(SC) wherein it was held that request for replacement of car even on the allegation of the manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. It was further observed that responsibility of the dealer under warranty was only to repair or replace any part found to be defective and if necessary repairs and replacement of components are carried out free of charges during the period of warranty it does not constitute deficiency-in-service. Replacement of the vehicle simply because clutches or assembly were repaired or replaced during the warranty was held unjustified in this case and only a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation to the aggrieved parties.
10. In other case reported as II 2005 CPJ 72(NC) Swaraj Mazada Ltd vs P.K. Chakrapur and ors., it was held that lower mileage does not amount to manufacturing defects. In a recent case decided by the National Commission reported as Classic Automobiles vs. Leela Nand Mishra II (2010) CPJ 235 it has been held that if no expert evidence is produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle, and the vehicle is repeatedly brought to Service Station for repairs cannot make a ground to hold that vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects. Similar observations have been made in Revision Petition No.1153 of 2005 that Honble National Commission while observing that admittedly it had warranty of 18 months which expires on 10.12.2000 and the complaint had been filed on 21.2.2002 while the Ld. Counsel for the complainant could not satisfy as to what be liability of the manufacturer after the expiry of the warranty period. No expert evidence was brought on the record in the said case to support that the vehicle ahd been manufacturing defects, therefore, it was held that District Forum is not following the procedure made under Section 13 of the C.P. Act erred in holding the manufacturer guilty of deficiency-in-service or that the vehicle had manufacturing defects. The Honble National Commission long back had held in this case that the award of compensation under the CP Act had to be made only on well recognized legal norms covering quantification of damages or compensation. The compensation has to be awarded on a rational basis after consideration of material produced before the Adjudication Forums, enumerating sufferings, mental torture and the extent to which monetary loss has been caused thereby to the complainant.
The vehicle is being used by the complainant after its purchase and slight defects were removed immediately when it was taken to the workshop. There is no material on record to establish that vehicle is suffered any manufacturing defects. The appellant was not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle, therefore, the OP can can be held guilty of deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for which this Forum is empowered to issue order directing the OP to do one or more of the following things under Sectrion 14(1) of the Act:
i) To replace the goods with new goods of similar description free from any defect;
ii) To return to the complainant the price or as the case may be the charges paid by the complainant and;
iii) To pay such amount as compensation for any loss or harassment suffered by a consumer due to negligence of the OP and also;
iv) To dis-continue the unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice are not repeated reference is made section 14 of the Act.
As stated earlier there is no manufacturing defect, therefore, the question of the refund of the price does not arise and we are in complete agreement with the finding of the District Forum in this regard.
The District Forum vide impugned order has directed the OP/respondent to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant in this regard and Rs.10,000/- as the litigation charges. In case of Maruti Udyog Limited (Supra) Honble Supreme Court has refused for the replacement of the car or the refund of the price but awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the aggrieved party. In the case in hand, the District Forum has awarded Rs.30,000/- as the compensation for the inconvenience and Rs.10,000/- as the litigation charges, which is very much adequate in the circumstances of the case and we do not find any justification to intervene therein.
Further during the course of the arguments the Counsel for the respondent has made the statement that respondent is ready to provide the service of the vehicle in question free of charge, if it is prayed, in his workshop. This opportunity may be obtained by the appellant by taking the vehicle to the workshop of the OP. With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed.