State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs The Premier Motor Garage on 14 March, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/202/2018 ( Date of Filing : 20 Jul 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/06/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/161/2015 of District DF-I) 1. Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Kirpal Singh, aged about 40 years, resident of House No. 1284, Mori Gate, Manimajra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Premier Motor Garage 47, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director 2. The Hindustan Motors Ltd. Chennai Car Plat, Adhigathur, P.O., Kadambattur-631203 Triuvallur District Tamil Nadu, Through its Managing Director 3. M/s Goyal Automobiles Indl Area Plot No. 61, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 14 Mar 2019 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 202 of 2018 Date of Institution 20.07.2018 Date of Decision 14.03.2019 Kuldeep Singh Son of Sh. Kirpal Singh aged about 40 years, Resident of H.No.1284, Mori Gate, Manimajra. ... Appellant V E R S U S 1. The Premier Motor Garage, 47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. The Hindustan Motors Ltd., Chennai Car Plat, Adhigathur, P.O. Kadambattur-631203 Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director. 3. M/s Goyal Automobiles, Indl. Area, Plot No.61, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director ...Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.06.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.161/2015 Argued by: Ms.Daljit Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for respondent No.3 Appeal No. 212 of 2018 Date of Institution 01.08.2018 Date of Decision 14.03.2019 Premier Motor Garage, having its registered office at Plot No. 47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160 002, through its Director Sh.Mohit Partap Singh. .......Appellant V e r s u s Kuldeep Singh Son of Sh. Kirpal Singh aged about 42 years, Resident of H.No.1284, Mori Gate, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh. The Hindustan Motors Ltd., Chennai Car Plat, Adhigathur, P.O. Kadambattur-631203 Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director. M/s Goyal Automobiles, Plot No.61, Industrial Area,Phase-1, Chandigarh,(through its Managing Director. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.06.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.161/2015 Argued by : Mr. Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Daljit Kaur, Advocate for respondent Noi.1 Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for respondent No.3 Appeal No. 262 of 2018 Date of Institution 03.10.2018 Date of Decision 14.03.2019 M/s Goyal Automobiles, Indl. Area, Plot No.61, Phase-1,Chandigarh (through its Managing Partner, Mr.Ankush Goel) .......Appellant V e r s u s Kuldeep Singh Son of Sh. Kirpal Singh aged about 40 years, Resident of H.No.1284, Mori Gate, Manimajra The Premier Motor Garage, 47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 3. The Hindustan Motors Ltd., Chennai Car Plat, Adhigathur, P.O. Kadambattur-631203 Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director ...Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.06.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.161/2015 Argued by : Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Daljit Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT This order will dispose of aforementioned three appeals- bearing No.202 of 2018 filed by the complainant and other two appeals bearing No.212 of 2018 and 262 of 2018 filed by Opposite Parties, all against common order dated 12.6.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short 'the Forum' only) allowing a consumer complaint bearing No.161/2015.
To dictate order, facts have been taken from appeal bearing No.202 of 2018 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs The Premier Motor Garage & Ors. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order, referred to above.
2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he purchased a new Mitsubishi Pajero Sport car on 25.3.2012 against price of Rs.24,55,270/-. He got it insured against payment of Rs.55,761/-. He was assured that this car had many extra features like strong body etc. and three years warranty was also given to effect any repair free of cost. In the month of October,2013, he noticed that doors of the car had started getting rust from inner side and the vehicle got rust from the bottom also. OP No.1- the dealer, through whom the car was purchased, was approached, however, no action was taken. The matter was then taken up by sending emails from time to time. In the meantime, signs of eroding of paint was also noticed from many places. By stating that the sheet used to prepare the body/shell was not upto the mark and standard quality, which resulted into rusting of various parts of the car, it was said that there was manufacturing defect in the car. A prayer was made to replace the entire body/shell or to refund the IDV of the vehicle at the relevant time i.e. 17,60,000/-. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
3. Upon notice, separate replies were filed by the OPs. OP No.1 -in its reply stated that the dispute inter-se is between the complainant and the manufacturer and as per warranty clause, it excludes replacement of damaged parts where there is normal deterioration, discoloration, fading, flawing or damage to plated parts, paint coat, rubber parts and paint coat etc. The problem of rusting had occurred on account of normal wear & tear and as such it was not covered under the warranty clause.
On similar line, defence was taken by OP No.2-the manufacturer. In its written reply, it was stated that damage which may have occurred due to natural wear & tear is not covered under the warranty.
OP No.3- is the dealer who had taken all assets and liabilities of OP No.1.
4. The complainant filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statements and reiterating those made in the complaint.
All the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.6.2018 by granting the following relief to the appellant/complainant;
To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as damages;
To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
To pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.
The awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences.
5.. It is necessary to mention here that appeal filed by the manufacturer of the car/OP No.2 against the order under challenge was dismissed vide even date order, being barred by limitation, as such, qua the manufacturer, this order has become final.
6. It is also necessary to mention here that the vehicle was purchased on 25.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.24,55,270/-. Consumer complaint was filed when grievance of the complainant qua rusting of parts of the car was not redressed. The said complaint was filed on 13.3.2015 i.e. within three years from the date of purchase. The car had covered distance of 1.15 Lakhs Kms. when it went for last service. The claim was rejected on the ground that the warranty was for a period of three years or till the covering of one lakh kilometers, whichever was earlier.
7. The core question in this case is, as to whether, any customer would like to purchase a car if the manufacturer of that car is offering warranty qua its shell/body against corrosion/rusting for 2-3 years only. Further, whether it is to be expected that there is presumed warranty qua body/shell of the car that it would not get corrosion/rusting for its life, presently to the extent of minimum 10 years. Similar issue came up for consideration earlier before this Commission in the case titled Harjinder Singh vs The Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Limited & Ors., Appeal No.199 of 2015 decided on 18.12.2015. In that case, complaint filed by the purchaser qua rusting of the parts of the car, was rejected by the Forum, the same being filed beyond the period of warranty. He preferred appeal before this Commission and the issues which have cropped up for consideration in this case, were also discussed in the said appeal.
8. It is on record that during pendency of the complaint, the car was presented to an expert committee consisting of Assistant Professor, Department of Materials and Metallurgy Engineering and another Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, both of PEC University of Technology, Sector-12, Chandigarh. The said car was examined thoroughly and it was reported on 25.5.2017, as under ;
"1. The corrosion is present at different locations far apart on the vehicle, from doors of back windows to upper part of front chassis. Corrosion is also observed in bonnet near engine casing.
2. The corrosion at the doors of back windows is very severe and conditions is highly deteriorating.
3. Comparing the photographs (Annexure 5-20) submitted by you, with present state of corrosion, it seems that corrosion rate is increasing and spreading to the nearby area.
4. The present vehicle condition indicates that, the corrosion is not normal keeping in view of the service life of this vehicle."
Perusal of the report reveals that it was clearly said that corrosion/rusting existing on various parts of the car was very severe and deteriorating. It was further observed that corrosion was increasing and spreading on car's body/shell. It was specifically stated that corrosion was not normal keeping in view of the service life of the vehicle.
9. It is not disputed that the car purchased was of high end car. In 'General Information' issued by the manufacturer company as contained in its booklet Annexure-3, it is stated that the car is manufactured with the finest materials and latest automobile engineering techniques and most advanced methods of quality control. It was further stated that to ensure continued performance and prolonged life of the vehicle, the company offers a generous warranty, details of which have been given in the later part of the booklet.
10. Counsel for the dealer and the manufacturer of the vehicle argued that as per terms and conditions of the warranty, rusting of the body is not covered. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in the case titled Harjinder Singh vs The Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Limited & Ors., Appeal No.199 of 2015 decided on 18.12.2015. In the said case also rusting was noticed on various parts of the car within short spell of time. The complaint was dismissed. However, as above said, appeal was allowed by observing as under ;
"We have gone through the warranty terms and conditions, which are noticed by the Forum, in its order under challenge. In the first instance, it is stated that respondent no.1 warrants that each Hyundai car sold shall be free from any defects in material and workmanship, under normal use and maintenance, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions mention the above warranty, what it covers and what it does not.
We are of the considered opinion that it is not necessary for us, to look into the negative conditions mentioned in the warranty Hyundai Warranty Policy. It is an admitted fact that the car was purchased on 10.08.2011, which met with an accident on 10.12.2012. Corrosion/rusting was indicated to the respondents on 27.03.2014 vide email Annexure C-3. Complaints made by the appellant in that regard, on different dates, are noticed in preceding part of this order. In warranty Policy, it is clearly stated that the car sold shall be free from any defects in material and workmanship. Qua electric and mechanical parts, negative conditions may work. However for shell/body of the car, it is implied and inbuilt that the body will survive at least life of the car, which in these days can be reasonably fixed at 10 years. The fact of rusting was indicated within 2 years and eight months.
Contention of the respondents that corrosion/ rusting may have been caused on account of misuse of the car or if it is open to atmospheric pressure/conditions, is liable to be rejected. It is of common knowledge that these days, on account of paucity of space, more than 70% of the cars, in the cities are parked on the road side. However, the instances of getting rusting in such a short span of time are not many, rather negligible."
11. Contention of Counsel for the respondents that rusting may have been caused on account of parking the car in open was rightly rejected. Maximum number of cars are parked in streets in open. We have never noticed a car getting rust on any part within 2-3 years. Nobody would opt to purchase such a car if the same is to get rust within a short spell of time. It is proclaimed by the manufacturer that the car was manufactured with finest materials and with the latest automobile engineering techniques. If that was so, the car was not supposed to get rust for a minimum period of 10 years. Otherwise also, one can see cars running on the road having no rusting etc. for a period of more than 20 years. Some cars have become even antique and are in reckoning for more than 100 years.
12. At the time of arguments, photographs of car's condition, as existing today, were shown which depict its pathetic condition. Front windscreen can come out at any time and cause damage to the driver and other occupants. The Forum has also looked to this aspect and observed as under ;
"Perusal of the photographic evidence i.e. to say photographs Annexure 5-20 also speaks of rust in the windows of the vehicle in a span of three years. Thus, keeping in view the harmonious and reasonable appreciation of the material on record, we do say and record a conclusion, corrosion is not normal keeping in view the life i.e. three years and this benefit has to go to the consumer. Though we record a finding such like replacement or to say paint etc. is not covered under the warranty and exclusion clause has already been referred hereinbefore. However, it remains a fact, there has been some deficiency in service in the material used, may be on slightly higher side and, therefore, for this damage, to our judicial conscience, it appears the said loss could be quantified in terms of restorative theory of justice i.e. to say restore the damages caused to the aggrieved parties and we have to quantify the damages globally."
13. The opinion of the Experts appears to be correct in view of the observations made in the earlier part of the order. Further, contention of the manufacturer is that large number of cars were sold, however, no such defect was indicated, and as such, damage to the car in question may be caused by keeping it under abnormal circumstances. Such an argument was raised in Harjinder Singh's Case(supra) and it was rejected by observed as under ;
"Further contention of Counsel for the respondents that respondent no.1 had sold thousand of cars and no such defect has been indicated ever, cannot stand scrutiny of law. Defect may occur in one case only. It depends, under what circumstances and conditions, the unit was manufactured.
Section 2 (1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) defines the word defect as under:-
(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;"
In the present case also, the material used in manufacturing body/shell of the car was of defective quality. Such rusting is not expected on any body part of the high end car manufactured by respondent No.2.
14. Now it is to be seen whether relief granted to the appellant/complainant is justified or not. We have seen plight of the complainant. He had purchased a new car by incurring an amount of Rs.24,55,270/- He noted rusting on various parts of the car and took up the matter with the OPs. Nothing was done. He filed a consumer complaint before the Forum on 13.3.2015. By that time, half of the car had got rust. As per finding given by us in the earlier part of the order, at present, rusting had spread all over the body and if it is not cured immediately some damage may be caused to the driver and occupants of the car. The entire body shell needs replacement and it is not possible to do so with the amount granted i.e. Rs.one lakh.
15. In view of the above, we partly accept this appeal and against column(i) in para-16 of the impugned order granting relief, it is ordered that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be read as Rs.7,00,000/-. Other reliefs granted in column (ii) and (iii) shall remain the same. Penal interest awarded on column (i) & (ii) shall remain the same. Let the awarded amount be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, penal consequences, as mentioned in para 16 of the impugned order, shall become applicable.
Contention of Counsel for the dealer through whom the car was purchased that it was not liable also stands rejected.
16. For the reasons recorded above, appeal bearing No.202 of 2018 filed by the complainant is partly accepted and appeal bearing No.212 of 2018 titled as Premier Motor Garage Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors. and 262 of 2018 titled as Goyal Automobiles Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors., being devoid of merit, are dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been modified to the extent, as stated above.
17. Certified copies of this order, be placed on the files of Appeals bearing No.212 of 2018 and 268 of 2018.
18. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA] MEMBER