State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, B-19, ... vs K. Venugopal Son Of Shri Karunakaran, ... on 5 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.827 of 2013 Date of Institution: 07.11.2013 Date of Decision: 05.03.2014 M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, B-19, Ranjangaon, MIDC, Industrial Area, Renjangaon 412 210, Taluka,Shirpur, District Pune ( India), through its authorized signatory Sh. Anil Joshi. Appellant (Opposite Party No.1) Versus 1. K. Venugopal son of Shri Karunakaran, resident of flat number 502, 5th Floor, Flora Apartment, Sector 19, Faridabad (Haryana). Respondent (Complainant) 2. M/s Tayal India Motors (P) Ltd, 15/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad 121003, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory. Respondent (Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the parties: Sh. R.K. Bamal, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Venugopal, respondent complainant in person O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
Delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. This appeal has been preferred by Fiat India Automobiles Limited (appellant herein) against the order dated June 28th, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad, whereby, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment, was awarded to the respondent-complainant on account of further repairs and mental harassment. Rs.2200/- was also awarded as litigation expenses.
3. It is not in dispute that the car Fiat Punto Emotion make was purchased by K. Venugopal complainant (respondent No.1 herein) on August 30th, 2009 at the cost of Rs.5,30,000/- from respondent No.2. In addition to the manufacturers warranty of two years, this vehicle was carrying an extended warranty of two years, that is, total warranty was of four years in all. From the very first service on November 24th, 2009, the car was consuming excess oil.
The complainant also complained about strange noise that started coming from the engine and body parts started showing signs of unusual rusting. The appellant and respondent No.2 failed to rectify the defects of the car.
4. The appellant and respondent No.2 failed to appear before the District Forum and were proceeded ex parte.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent No.1 did not lead any expert evidence on the record. The complaint was time barred because the respondent No.1 purchased the car on August 30th, 2009, whereas, the complaint was filed on 15th January, 2013, that is, after the period of limitation.
7. This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant because the respondent No.1-complainant had pointed out defects in the car to the appellant and respondent No.2 within the warranty period.
Moreover, Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, from Quality Service, Pune, representative of the appellant also inspected the car on September 27th, 2012 and observed following defects during test drive:-
(i) Abnormal noise while pushing the accelerator.
(ii) Rusted body parts despite innumerable repairs.
(iii) Steering/Suspension noise.
(iv) Inadequate finishing especially on the doors.
(v) Internal accessories were haphazardly fitted.
(vi) Insulation tape fixed for reducing the noise.
(vii) Engine vibration noise.
(viii) Heavy body vibration and abnormal noise.
(ix) Black film not pasted on the car as per model of the vehicle.
(x) Door not fitted properly leading to heavy noise while opening the door.
(xi) Oil consumption. Advised that for every 2,000 km 1 litre oil would be consumed.
(xii) Door rubber beading pasted on the door.
(xiii) Air Conditioner was not cooling properly after visit to Techno.
(xiv) Front Air Conditioner grille broken.
8. Moreover, the appellant and the respondent No.2 got the car repaired from different service stations of the Fiat Company but the defects could not be removed. The entire engine assembly of the car has also been replaced with the new one. The evidence led by the respondent No.1 was unrebutted as the appellant and the respondent No.2 failed to appear before the District Forum and were proceeded ex parte. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
9. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.83,600/- deposited on December 10th, 2013 be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification, in accordance with the rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
11. Record of the District Forum be sent back.
Announced:
05.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President U.K