State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maneksha M Varghese vs Autonova Motors Pvt Ltd. on 22 September, 2020
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
COURT - 3
Complaint NO. 103 of 2013 Dt: 22.09.2020
1. Maneksha madakkappilliyil Varghese
F/104, Savya Solaris,
Opp. AUDA Garden, Motera,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Manager
Autonova Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Ground Floor, Panchdhara Complex,
Near Grand Bhagwati,
S.G. Highway,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
2. The Manager
Hindustan Motors Ltd.,
Ground Floor, Panchdhara Complex,
Near Grand Bhagwati,
S.G. Highway,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat. ...respondents
Appearance: Mr. D. S. Wadhwa, Ld. Advocate for the appellant
Coram: Smt. J. P. Jani, Incharge President
Shri S. N. Vakil, Member
Smt. J. Y. Shukla, Member Order by Shri S.N. Vakil, Member
1. This is for manufacturing defect in a vehicle.
2. The Complainant Maneksha madakkappilliyil Varghese, filed the present complaint being CC No.103 of 2013, against the Autonova Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Motors Ltd., alleging that he purchased Mistubishi, Model:
Pajero Sports, Color: Black Magic, Chasis No.: MA700KH4WDC001092, 1 Engine No.: 4D56UCEE5724 for Rs. 25,81,000/- including insurance premium RTO etc. on 31.03.2013. The Registration No. of the car is GJ-1- RA-6181. Soon after taking the delivery he reported the dealer that it is hard to rotate the steering wheel but he was made to believe that it would automatically get normal soon. Subsequently on 4.04.2013 he felt that stiffness thereof and difficulty in rotating it. He felt stress on the shoulder muscle and bone in excerting more pressure to turn the steering wheel. It was also observed that paint on outer surface of the car was uneven and with bubble-like patches, dust particles and paint-like drops seen on many places. He informed the dealer point about the same. It was inspected and answered that it being a four wheel drive, stiffness would be present and would go away after 2 to 3 weeks of the regular driving. For paint problems, he was asked to get a coating done so that minor rough patches would go away. Accordingly he got it done but it remained as it was. He kept on following the matter with the company. Mr. Hirak Vora from the Hindustan Motors made initial check up and found some issues with the paint surface and referred the matter to the paint team. Reason for the paint problem was also informed to him, he was asked to put the car for paint problems but as no alternative arrangement was made by the opponents the car was not put. Till date none of the problems was cleared. For this deficiency he claims exchange of the faulty vehicle with a new one of the same variant; which is completely inspected/ checked and tested before the handing over to the complainant, and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony.
2
3. For Opponent No.1, none has appeared though served and A. R. Gupta & Associates appeared, but later resigned for want of instructions. Despite notice from this Commission, none has appeared for the opponents.
4. Heard Advocate Mr. D. S. Vadhwa for the complainant.
5. The complainant gave notice to the opponents alleging the same. Report of Complainant's vehicle by the opponent shows that the problem was reported to Autonova Motors, Ahmedabad stating the nature: 'problem is orange peel issue for this new vehicle 20-25 days old; process followed is OEM painting process, no sign or refinishing; observation is that dust was observed on Horizontal panels like Bonnet and Decky, orange peel observed on LH side panels; action required for rectification is that it should go by sanding and then by rubbing and polishing'. The complainant got it inspected through Laxmikant M. Patel, Motor Surveyor, Valuer and Loss Assessor who did it on 21.04.2015. His report shows that body shell was intact, paint deteriorated and road worthy, and engine has intact, non accidental and road worthy. As to nature of inspection for body shell paint quality and power steering assembly, he observed 'it is having steering wheel hardness trouble and paint is dull and deteriorated' and remarked 'the quality of paint that it is defective somewhere on front hood panel, top roof, decky door and right rear door. Some dust particles, pin hole and orange peel effect on the surface of paint which remained at the time of painting. There is no sign of refinishing, and all the body shell parts are found in original painting condition'. With respect of the power steering, he found 'some 3 hardness while operating, which needs further investigation in detail for trouble shooting and diagnosis' and observed that 'right rear door paint has gone towards orange peel effects because of manufacturing defects of painting and that rear decky door had just particles on surface of paint also due to manufacturing paint defect'.
6. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the paint of the vehicle was defective as aforesaid and it would either be corrected by sanding and then by rubbing and polishing as reported for the dealer. However, considering the extent of paint defects on front hood panel, top roof, decky door and right rear door; some dust particles, pin hole and orange peel effect on the surface of paint; and considering the lapse of time thusfar the defect might not be cured by sanding, rubbing and polishing. In view whereof the vehicle needs to be repainted, of course striking the balance between costs of removing all the defects and that of repainting the entire vehicle.
7. It is a sports car with four wheel drive; the surveyor has not found the cause of steering wheel hardness trouble for which further investigation in detail for trouble-shooting and diagnosis was required as remarked by him. There is nothing to show that it was by manufacturing defect only. There is again no comparison of steering wheel in such kind of car with the other car of the same make, model and type. Therefore, it is difficult to give any relief as to the alleged power steering hardness.
8. Complainant has asked for total replacement of the vehicle which for aforesaid reasons cannot be granted for painting defects only. 4
9. The complaint has asked for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental pain, but as his own pleading shows that he was asked to put the car for paint problems but he insisted for replacement car in the meantime which was not. Therefore, the case does not deserve anything towards mental pain than Rs. 7,500/- for delivering such a costly car with defects in paint.
10. For reason stated above the complaint deserves to be partly allowed, for which following final order is passed.
Final Order
i) Complaint No. 103 of 2013 is partly allowed.
ii) The opponents do, at the option of the complainant, remove the paint
defects as observed by the surveyor Mr. Laxmikant M. Patel or if the complainant pays 60% of the charges for repainting the car, the opponents do repaint the entire car.
iii) The opponents do jointly and specially pay the complainant Rs.7,500/-
towards mental pain.
iv) No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court today on ______ day of September, 2020.
(J.Y.Shukla) (S.N.Vakil) (J. P. Jani)
Member Member Incharge President
5