State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director Fiat Group ... vs 1.Ms. Pooja Goyal on 16 June, 2022
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
cOMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FANO.366/2017
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN C.C.NO.410OF 2014
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-II,
HYDERABAD
Between:
The Managing Director,
Fiat Group Automobiles India
Private Limited (now known as FCA
India Automobiles Private Limited),
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered office at Benefice,
2nd Floor, Mathuradas Mill Compound,
Opp. Kamala Mills, Lower Parel (West),
Mumbai - 400 013.
.. Appellant/Opposite Party No.3
AND
1. Ms.Pooja Goyal
W/o.Mr.Anupam Goyal
Residing at Open Plot 110,
Sri Raghava Nilayam,
KHB Phase-5, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad - 5 0 0 072.
..Respondent No. 1/Complainant
2. The General Manager,
Tejaswi Motors Private Limited,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered office àt Butta House,
2nd Floor, #4-14, KPHB Road,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081.
Represented by its General Manager.
Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1
3. The General Manager
M/s.Dhingra Motors,
A Company incorporated under the
Provision_ of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at
Vasant Apartments, Old Delhi Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana- 122 001,
Represented by its General Manager.
...Respondent No.3/0pposite Party No.2
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party No.3: M/s. C. Sudesh Anand
Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant: Ms. Pooja Goyal-PIP
O 2
Counsel for Respondents/Opp.Parties 1 & 2: M/s. Indus Lav
HON'BLE PRESIDENT
M.S.K.JAISWAL,
JUSTICE
QUORUM: SRI
AND
RAMANATHAN,
LADY MEMBER
SMT. MEENA HON'BLE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, THURSDAY, THE TWENTY TWo TWO THOUSAND Member) Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Order (Per S m t . M e e n a 1986 praying this
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of C.P.Act, in records and proceedings Commission be pleased to call for before the District Consumer No.410 of 2014 filed Complaint after Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1I, Hyderabad and thereof set aside the examining the legality, validity and propriety by the District impugned order dated 27.11.2015 passed Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I1, Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described a s arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the Complainant purchased a Fiat Lina MVD Active Car on 19.08.2012 bearing registration No.H.R.26BVO515 for a sum of Rs.7,48,512/- from Opposite Party No.2 which is manufactured by Opposite Party No.3. There was 2 years warranty with an extended warranty of another 2 years for the said car. On the very next day of purchase, i.e., on 20.08.2012, the car started wobbling (vibrating) at 80 kmp/h and above speed. Hence, the Complainant took the car to Opposite Party No.2 and then to M/s.HIM Motors, Patpatganj, Delhi who adjusted the wheel balancing but the problem was not solved. The Complainant came to Hyderabad on a job transfer and brought the car with him Hyderabad and it was taken to Opposite Party No.1 at Hyderabad for more than 50 times to get the problem rectified. The vehicle was in workshop for more than 150 days. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 could not point out the exact defect and were finding it difficult to remove. They changed the tyres two times, multiple wheel balancing and alignments were done and changed the wheel rims and the lower arm, knuckle joints, brake discs and wheel bearings etc., but the Opposite Parties could not pin point and fix the problem. The vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect due to which, it frequently gave problem. Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase amount and for compensation and costs.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 has filed their written version contending that there is no territorial jurisdiction and that their role is limited. It is stated that when the Complainant brought the vehicle to them, they had taken due care and caution and satisfied the Complainant. The Complainant had taken the delivery of the car each time only when he was satisfied with their services. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of this Opposite Party and they prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
5. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version and contended that the vehicle was never brought to them till date from the date of purchase with whatsoever complaint of defect in car.
This Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party No.1 had carried out repairs and Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturer.
Hence, there is no liability insofar as this Opposite Party is concerned and there is no deficiency of service on their part.
6. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their written version and contended that there is no territorial jurisdiction as the Complainant purchased the car from the dealer in Gurgaon.
Purther, the relation of Opposite Party No.1& 2 with that of Opposite Party No.3 is principal to principal basis and that the Opposite Party no.1 & 2 are not agents to Opposite Party No.3.
This Opposite Party sells the vehicles in bulk to the dealers and the dealers purchase the vehicles in bulk as per their requirement and effects the sale independently to its customers. The vehicles before dispatch from the factory of Opposite Party No.3 is put to strict test under various levels and durability and proficiency of each and every part and only on absolute satisfaction the vehicles will be rolled out and delivered to the respective customers. Further, the wobbling in the steering wheel can happen due to various external reasons due to the usage of vehicle and defect if any occurred to the vehicle subsequent to the usage of the same cannot be put on A their shoulders. With these NubmisAION, is Opposil: Party denied deficiency of service on thelr pArt and prayed lo lismiss t complaint
7. Before the District Porum, the Complainant filed evidner aflidavit and Ex.A1 to AS marked. Evidence allidavit of opjposile Parties liled. Ex.BI to 2 marked on their belall.
8, The District Forum alter hearing both sides and comsiclering the material on record allowed the complaint dirocting the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to relund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.6,33,682/- (i.c., the sum arrived aller deduction of depreciation of 15%% Rs.7,45,508/- lor on approximately 2 years) and to take back the delective veliicle lrom the Complainant; to pay a sum of Ra.20,000/ towards compensation for mental agony and trauma underwent by th Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ Lowards costs. Time for compliance given was 30 days from the dute of receipt of the order
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Porum, the Appellant/Opposite Party No,3 filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following .The impugned order failed to appreciate that merely carrying out petty repairs on a vehicle is not sullicient to establish that the vehicle had a manulacturing defect. The opinion of an expert would have to be produced to establish this fact. .The Forum .failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.1/Complainant had used the vehicle for a period of over 2 years. No refund of consideration ought to have been granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.
The learned Forum failed to consider that the invoice issucd by Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Gurgaon and also provided for resolution of all disputes through arbitration.
10. The point arises for consicderntion is whether the that impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any erTor or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
on record.
11. Heard both sides and perused the material Car was purchased 12 The vehicle, a car Fiat Lina MVD Active sum of No.1 on 19.08.2012 for a by the Complainant/Respondent Ex.A3-retail invoice. It is her case Rs.7,48,512/- as evidenced vide and it been giving her trouble that from day one the vehicle has centre at Hyderabad has been taken to the authorized service troubles persist and the numerous times but the defects and defect and required vehicle has an inherent manufacturing replacement.
from Opposite Party
13. The vehicle was purchased in Gurgaon No.3. Although dealer of Opposite Party No.2 being the authorized claims to the vehicle was purchased in Delhi, the Complainant have had the vehicle repaired at the Opposite Party No.2 workshop attended and thereafter repairs were after she shifted to Hyderabad centre. The fact that the to at the Hyderabad authorized service availed the services of the Complainant/Respondent No. I and authorized service centre at Hyderabad cannot be disputed on their business from their since the Opposite Parties are carrying Forum has got the territorial authorized service centres, the the comnplaint. Arbitration jurisdiction to entertain and decide that Clause is a n agreement between Complainant and dealer and of the Consumer Courts cannot it cannot circumscribe jurisdiction been decided in a catena of judgments be sustained as it, has that complaints filed under the where it has been categorically held Consumer Protection Act, special remedy can be being a there being an arbitration agreement.
entertained despite Consumer Fora have to go on.
Proceedings before the has only filed extensive
14. The Complainant/Respondent No.1 claim that the vehicle was email correspondence to support her continuously giving her trouble. The impugned order has relied these emails and decided that the vehicle was completely on defective and directed refund of amount álter deduction of depreciation.
15. The emails have been addressed to the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.3 and are dated from 2nd November,2012 onwards. The vehicle was purchased on 19.08.2012 and the complaints have been recorded vide email only after almost three months from the date of invoice/purchase. In her emails, she has stated that from day one she has faced problems of vehicle shaking badly at 100 kmp/h and she has already got the tyres changed three times. Unfortunately none of her complaints are supported by any job invoice or repair history.
16. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 has rightly contended that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 failed to produce the owner's manual which would reflect the history of the vehicle. It is only the self serving statement of the Complainant as evidenced in her affidavit that she took the vehicle to the dealer and also to M/s.HIM Motors, Patpatganj, Delhi, but the problem of wobbling remained.
17. The Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 in their written version has contended that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 brought the subject vehicle to this Opposite Party only on 05.08.2013 after having used the vehicle for almost a year after purchase. A perusal of the vehicle service history filed vide Ex.B1 reveals the following dates the car was attended to. 05.08.2013, 02.09.2013, 08.11.2013, 07.12.2013, 10.12.2013 and 19,10.2014.
A scrutiny of the service history provided by Tejaswi Motors (Opposite Party No.1) Hyderabad only reveals that the parts replaced were not under warranty and because of wear and tear. None of the repairs imply that the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect warranting replacement or refund.
18. The impugned order unfortunately did not arrive at a reasonable and justifiable conclusion. When the Complainant has failed to prove her case and has refrained from filing any material 1 evidence to substantiate her contention, we are of the opinion that the vehicle which was admittedly purchased on 19.08.2012 was effectively used till it reached Hyderabad many months after. In act under the serrice history submitted by Tejaswi Motors (Opposite Party No.1) also reveals that the vehicle had an accident ana repairs were attended to. No expert opinion has been sought for. In the absence of an expert opinion, the impugned order erroneously concluded that the extensive email correspondence was conclusive evidence. This view cannot be sustained and we find that the Compiainant has failed to provide the required service ord to prove that from day one the vehicle has given her numerous problems which could not be rectified. Whenever any vehicle is taken to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, the complaints/grievances of the customers are recorded the in the job card, this does not imply admission of any defects in vehicle but a mere representation of the customers grievances.
Thereafter, standard checks a r e carried out and the observations are recorded by the service advisor on the back of the job card. The order Forum below has ignored all these aspects in the impugned that which is lacking in reason. The Forum below also ignored ascertain the there is no application filed by the Complainant to For all the manufacturing defect as alleged by the Complainant.
aside and aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set the appeal is allowed.
order of the
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the in CC.No.410/2014 is set District Commission-II, Hyderabad aside. The appeal is accordingy disposed o