State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramandeep Singh on 30 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
1)
First Appeal No.495 of 2019
Date of Institution : 01.08.2019
Date of Reserve : 04.05.2022
Date of Decision : 30.05.2022
Ford India Pvt. Ltd., S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu-
603204, India.
.....Appellant/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Ramandeep Singh R/o 98, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar,
Jalandhar
....Respondent/complainant
2. A.B.Motors Pvt. Ltd, Opposite Delhi Public School, Phagwara
Highway, Jalandhar.
....Proforma respondent/opposite party No.2
(2) First Appeal No.328 of 2019
Date of Institution : 31.05.2019
Date of Reserve : 04.05.2022
Date of Decision : 30.05.2022
A.B.Motors Pvt. Limited (Bhagat Ford) Authorized dealers of Ford
Cars) Opposite Delhi Public School, Jalandhar-Phagwara Highway,
Jalandhar through its Manager.
....Appellants/Opposite party No.2
Versus
1. Ramandeep Singh S/o S.Paramjit Singh R/o 98, Guru
Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar.
......Respondent/complainant
2. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Building 10C, DLF Cyber
City, DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing
Director/Director/Office Incharge
....Respondent/Opposite party No.1
First Appeals against the order dated
01.05.2019 of the District Consumer
First Appeal No 495 of 2019 2
Disputes Redressal Forum (now
'Commission'), Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member Present (F.A. No.495 of 2019):-
For the appellant : Sh.Ravi Nayak, Advocate for Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh.Sandeep Singh Gill, Advocate for Sh.H.S.Bedi, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER This order will dispose of above mentioned two connected appeals. One is filed by opposite party No.1 and the other is filed by opposite party No.2 challenging the same order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar. However, for the purpose of detailed facts, we are taking up First Appeal No.495 of 2019.
First Appeal no.495 of 2019
2. The appellant/opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as "The Act, 1986"), to challenge the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 passed in C.C No.291 of 2012 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short "the District Commission").
First Appeal No 495 of 2019 3
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) before the District Commission, Jalandhar which was partly accepted and opposite parties were directed to reimburse the said repair bill amount of Rs.1,50,003/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant i.e. 27.01.2013 till realization. The opposite parties were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
4. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant purchased a car namely Ford Figo 1.4 Diesel High-Ebony Diesel bearing Engine No.AM 31836, Chassis No.MAJ IXX MRJ1AM 31836, Model July 2010 of white colour from opposite party No.1, vide invoice No.LDH/1708/2010-2011 dated 28.07.2010 and paid an amount of Rs.5,05,996/-. The vehicle was registered with Registering Authority at Jalandhar vide Regn. No.PB-08-BT-0098. The vehicle was under warranty of two years or 1,00,000 kms whichever occurs earlier from the date of purchase. The vehicle was being serviced from the authorized dealer of the company. On 07.04.2012, the complainant was going to Ludhiana along with his friend. When they crossed Phagwara, the engine of the car stopped working after giving few jerks. The complainant called First Appeal No 495 of 2019 4 service centre of opposite party No.2. The car was taken to the Service Centre by the Service Engineer of opposite party No.1. The Service Engineer thoroughly checked the car and mentioned the status/details in job sheet which was issued at 3:40 p.m. With the permission of Service Engineer of opposite party No.2 the complainant handed over the car to opposite party No.2 for further checking thereof. On third day, the complainant was informed that the defect has occurred in the engine, as the radiator of the car was torn and the car has run approximately 2 kms. without any coolant in the radiator. The Service Engineer told the complainant that the engine gone defective and it can only be repaired / set right on payment of service charges, which he estimated more than Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant asked the opposite parties that when the warranty of 1 lakh kms. or 2 years is given then why opposite party No.2 is not entertaining his car for repair as it is covered under the warranty. The complainant approached number of times with the request to set the car right as per their warranty conditions but got no fruitful result. The complainant then served a legal notice dated 27.04.2012 upon the opposite parties but of no use. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment etc. The complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission to sought the following reliefs:
First Appeal No 495 of 2019 5
i) to set right the car, in question, bearing No.PB-08-BT-
0098, Ford Figo, without any payment or charges.
ii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation/ punitive damges; and
iii) to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing their separate replies.
6. The opposite party No.1 filed its reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission. The complainant has miserably failed to bring the present complaint within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. There is no defect in the vehicle and no deficiency in the services rendered by opposite party No.1 and as such, no liability can be fastened upon opposite party No.1 towards the repair/ replacement of the subject vehicle. The damage to the vehicle had occasioned due to the act solely attributable to the complainant as the vehicle was continuously driven in overheated condition while ignoring the indicator on the dash board showing the vehicle was overheated. The allegation of manufacturing defect in a vehicle is not to be taken to be as a gospel truth on mere statement of the complainant. The legal relationship between opposite party No.1 and its dealer i.e. opposite party No.2 is on a principal to principal basis. There is no privity of contract between opposite party No.1. On merits, it was submitted that the warranty obligation under the First Appeal No 495 of 2019 6 warranty plan is only for any defect confirmed by Ford dealer as Mechanical and/ or Electrical breakdown as defined in the warranty within the stipulated terms. It was submitted that opposite party No.2 had clearly explained the complainant that repair work was not covered under the warranty. Further stated that the damage to the vehicle was caused on account of external impact suffered by the vehicle due to which coolant had leaked from the radiator. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. The opposite party No.2 filed its reply and took preliminary objections that the warranty covers only manufacturing defect and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to overheating of car engine. Radiator of the vehicle was torn due to hitting of some object on front portion of car. The complainant/ driver of the vehicle ignored the indicator of Temperature Meter Gauge on dashboard panel of the car. The photographs relied upon by the complainant itself shows that the number plate of the vehicle, in question, was broken giving the only inference that the radiator would have punctured / torn due to collision of some hard object with the radiator. On merits, it was submitted that the document/job card was not out-come of thorough inspection rather the physical inspection like the items in the car etc. and does not relates to technical or mechanical inspection of the car. The card has not been prepared after technical or mechanical verification of the First Appeal No 495 of 2019 7 vehicle by service engineer. There is no violation of any terms of warranty or any deficiency or negligence in service on the part of opposite party No.2. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
8. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Commission, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf passed the order whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the District Commission, the appellant/opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal, by raising various arguments.
10. Learned counsel for the parties argued the matter at length. The written arguments have also been filed by the appellant and respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 has also filed written arguments in the connected First Appeal No.328 of 2019.
11. Sh.Ravi Nayak, Advocate for Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the District Commission has erred in passing the impugned order as the relief granted to respondent No.1 travels beyond the relief prayed for by the respondent No.1/complainant. The District Commission also failed to consider this fact that the respondent No.1/complainant neither provided any expert report nor lead any First Appeal No 495 of 2019 8 evidence to prove that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. It also failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record as well as snaps of the car. It is worthwhile to submit that the photographs annexed by the appellant make it crystal clear that there was damage to the radiator resulting leakage of the coolant. The District Commission failed to take note that the alleged problem in the vehicle had occasioned due to an act solely attributable to respondent No.1/complainant as the vehicle was continuously driven in overheated condition while ignoring the indicator on the dash board showing the vehicle was overheated. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed on the part of the appellant. Finally, it is prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the order passed by the District Commission, Jalandhar and dismiss the complaint with costs.
12. Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant argued that the ground taken to support for non- repair of the vehicle under warranty raised by the appellant is baseless. The appellant has failed to prove on record any supporting evidence to substantiate this fact that the vehicle was not under warranty and the defect is not a manufacturing defect. Mere assertion in this regard does not prove the fact that the vehicle met with an accident. The Service Engineer who took the inspection of the car before preparing job sheet never told about the rapture of the radiator. It is not possible that such a major defect has not come to the knowledge of the Service Engineer. First Appeal No 495 of 2019 9 The respondent/opposite party No.2 refused to repair the car under warranty. The respondent No.1/complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,003/- and then got delivery of the car from the Service Centre. The District Commission while deciding the complaint has thoroughly gone through the evidence available on the record and came to the conclusion that the opposite parties are at fault. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Commission and prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the order of the District Commission be upheld.
13. On the other hand, Sh.Sandeep Singh Gill, Advocate for Sh.H.S.Bedi, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that it has also challenged the order by way of First Appeal No.328 of 2019, wherein it is argued that the findings given by the District Commission are without any basis. The District Commission failed to appreciate that damage to the radiator could not be recorded while opening the job card as the radiator is concealed behind the bumper whereas during the job card preparation damages were examined very superficially and that to on body panels of the vehicle and not on individual parts or under chassis. It also held that in the vehicle there is some manufacturing defect but the finding is without any cogent evidence. The respondent No.1/complainant has not submitted any expert report to prove that there was any manufacturing defect. The dealer cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defect. The District Commission has failed to mention specifically as to what was the First Appeal No 495 of 2019 10 deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2. The only allegation leveled by the complainant in his complaint that the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 intentionally damaged/torn the radiator, to which there is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove this fact. The opposite party No.2 has placed on record the photographs showing as to how the vehicle has been hitted beneath the radiator which is just at the back of the front bumper and something hitted the same from under the car, which lead to the leakage of the coolant in the radiator which further lead to the heating of car engine and seizing of the same. In these circumstances, the repairs could not have been made under warranty and had to be got done on payment basis and thus the repairs has rightly been done on payment basis. Finally, it is prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the appeal as well as complaint against respondent No.2/opposite party No.2.
14. Heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents and other documents available on the file.
15. Brief facts of the case as per documents placed in record are that the respondent/complainant purchased a Car, Ford Figo 1.4 Diesel High-Ebony Diesel bearing Regn. No.PB-08-BT-0098 First Appeal No 495 of 2019 11 from respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 for an amount of Rs.5,05,996/-, vide Invoice dated 28.07.2010, Ex.C-2. The said vehicle/car was having 24 month's warranty as per Ex.C-5, wherein it is provided as under:
"Every new Ford vehicle is covered for two year or 1,00,000 kms.(whichever occurs earlier) from the vehicle sale date. Quite simply warranty means that any defect due to faulty manufacture or material within the warranty period will be repaired or replaced free of charge by any Authorized Food Dealer."
16. As per averment made by the complainant in his complaint that on 07.04.2012, the complainant was going to Ludhiana and after a drive of about 30 minutes the engine of the car stopped after giving few jerks. The complainant called the service Centre of respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 and car was taken to the Service Centre through their service van by the Service Engineer.
17. At the Service Centre on 07.04.2022 at 3:40 p.m., a job card showing vehicle status report Ex.C-5 was prepared and also few snaps of the car were taken to depict the condition of the car. The photographs placed as Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 shows that the car is almost free from any damage/ dent etc. except there is a small piece broken of the front number plate. Otherwise, there was no visible damage on the front portion of the car. Further averred that after making the formal inspection of the vehicle the service First Appeal No 495 of 2019 12 engineer of opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the entire checking of the car was to be done and it would take time. The complainant handed over the car to opposite party No.2 for its checking. On the third day, the respondent / complainant was intimated that the defect did occur in the engine of the car, as the radiator of the car was torn and the car had run approximately 2 Kms. without any coolant in its radiator. However, nothing was mentioned in this regard by the Service Engineer at the time of issuing the job card.
18. The opposite parties alleged in their reply that there is no manufacturing defect, if there is manufacturing defect, the same is covered under warranty. In the instant case, the damages caused to the vehicle are due to the act solely attributable to the complainant, who drove the car by ignoring the indicator on the dashboard showing the vehicle was overheated. The engine of the car was seized due to overheating. The radiator of the vehicle was torn due to striking of some hard object on the radiator, the radiator was punctured and the coolant in radiator would have leaked leading to overheating the engine. Therefore, the damage is not covered under warranty.
19. Now the issue is to decide whether damage to the vehicle is covered under warranty or not? The vehicle was brought to the workshop of respondent/opposite party No.2 on the same day i.e. 07.04.2010 and the same was checked by the Service Engineer of respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 but at that time the Service First Appeal No 495 of 2019 13 Engineer did not refer to torn/damaged radiator in the job sheet Ex.C-6. The plea taken by respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 that radiator of the car was torn due to striking of some hard object does not hold good as from the photographs/snaps clicked on 07.04.2010 in presence of the Service Engineer of respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 shows that there is no such visible damage to the car on front side, except a small broken corner of plastic number plate, from which it cannot be said that the vehicle struck with some hard object. Had the car been struck with the hard surface, in that situation there would have been a dent in the car. The District Commission has rightly observed that "the version of the OP is not acceptable nor seems to be true one rather the same is manipulated just to debar the complainant from taking the benefit of the warranty period."
20. Further regarding version of the appellant/opposite party No.1 that there is no manufacturing defect in the car, therefore, the damage is not covered under warranty. As per warranty card, Ex.C-5, whenever any parts which is usually not changed on each occasion of the service, is become defective, while car is running that definitely is covered under the faulty manufactured and as such, covered under the warranty.
21. In this case, a sudden defect has occurred in the car going smoothly and engine stopped by giving jerks. Therefore, all of a sudden some defect occurred in the car is due to faulty manufacturing. As such, the damage to the car is covered under First Appeal No 495 of 2019 14 warranty which has only covered 34,086 kilometers. The appellant/ opposite party No.1 is to bear the expenses incurred on repairs done by the appellant/opposite party No.2 for an amount of Rs.1,50,003/-
22. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. However, we are of the view that the interest and compensation awarded by the District Commission to the complainant is on higher side which should be quite reasonable.
23. Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 is partly accepted to the extent that the opposite parties shall pay as under:
i) to pay Rs.1,50,003/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant i.e. 27.01.2013 till realization;
ii) to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment;
iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
It is made clear that the order shall be complied with by the opposite parties jointly and severally.
24. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,000/-in compliance of the order dated 23.09.2019 against receipt No.1822614 dated 21.10.2019. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by First Appeal No 495 of 2019 15 the Registry of this Commission to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/its entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. Registry is further directed to remit the amount of Rs.3,000/- deposited as costs, to the respondent No.1/complainants, if not already remitted, in pursuance to the interim order dated 02.09.2019. First Appeal No.328 of 2019
25. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2 on the ground that for the manufacturing defect, it is the manufacturer who is liable and the dealer who works on principal to principal basis cannot be vicariously held liable for the misdeed of the manufacturer. However, the Service Engineer of appellant/opposite party No.2 brought the car at Service Centre and after checking prepared a job sheet, wherein the Service Engineer did not refer the torn/damaged radiator. The appellant/opposite party No.2 has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the radiator was already damaged before the car was brought to the workshop/Service Centre.
26. The District Commission has rightly observed that such like a major defect cannot be over-sighted by the Engineer rather the said damage of the radiator was done just to get rid of warranty. Instead of the damage covered in warranty, the opposite party No.2 First Appeal No 495 of 2019 16 charged Rs.1,50,003/- to repair the vehicle. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party No.2 to charge the said amount as the repair was within warranty period.
27. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. However, the interest and compensation awarded by the District Commission to the complainant is on higher side which should be quite reasonable.
28. Sequel to the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Commission is modified to the extent as detailed in F.A. No.495 of 2019 above.
29. The appellant/opposite party No.2 had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.87,503/- in compliance of the order dated 06.06.2019 against receipt No.1821237 dated 02.07.2019. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry of this Commission to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/its entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. First Appeal No 495 of 2019 17
30. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER May 30,2022 parmod