State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mr.Vishal Sushil Goenka, Director Of ... vs 1. Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. on 10 April, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Complaint Case
No. CC/13/81
1. Mr.Vishal Sushil
Goenka
Director of Artek
Surfin Chemicals Ltd.
Situated at Surfin
Centre, Plot No.121,
Marol Co-op. Ind.
Estate, M.V. Road,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400 059.
2. Artek Surfin
Chemicals Ltd.
Situated at Surfin
Centre, Plot No.121,
Marol Co-op. Ind.
Estate, M.V. Road,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400 059.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Skoda India Pvt.
Ltd.
At A-1/1 MIDC, Five
Star Industrial Area,
Shendra, Aurangabad - 431
201.
2. Autobahn
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
At Kurla Work Shop,
thru its General Manager
Amar Enterprises
Compound,
Business Complex
No.117, Kale Margo,
Opp. L.B.S. Marg,
Kurla (W),
Mumbai - 400 070.
............Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S. Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.M.K. Jain, Advocate for the complainants.
Mr.Pushkar Patankar, Advocate for opponent No.1.
Mr.Harikesh Singh, Advocate for opponent No.2.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member [1] Heard on the point of admission. Complaint is filed on 15/03/2013. Several adjournments have been granted in the interest of justice. Crux of the consumer complaint is about non-functioning/malfunctioning of the Skoda Superb (Elegance) Car [hereinafter to be referred to as the car] purchased by the complainant on 25/03/2011 for the total cost of `33,74,460/-. The car has been used continuously since the day of purchase till 07/01/2013 i.e. first time, according to the complainant, the car was totally dead as it was not starting and therefore it was taken to the opponents garage for repairs. In the workshop, it was found that there is a mechanical fault which was known as Mechatronics Failure since this part of engine was in the warranty period, it was replaced on 05/02/2013 along with other work such as replacement of charged battery, stickers, repair of kit, replace of Skoda emblem and transmission of oil. This is admitted position as the complainant relies on job card record produced and available in the complaint compilation. Subsequently, on 17/08/2013, the car was taken for repairs/replacement of oil, cooler, fuel gauge, suction jet pump wit, memory switch, window regulator. This work was carried on 17/08/2013. Last time, repairs were carried out on 13/11/2013 for fuse box/relay plate and flate fuse. It is tried to be submitted by the learned advocate of the complainant that the complainant was not willing to take delivery of repaired car on the ground of profane troubles for smooth run of the car. Complainant filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and claiming an amount of `33,75,460/-.
[2] Learned advocate of the opponents vehemently opposed admission of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the car has been purchased by the company and not by the individual.
Use of the car is for promotion of the business through the Directors of the complainant.
Therefore, complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as per provisions of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[3] Another ground agitated by the opponents is that as and when defects were pointed out by the complainant in the car they were promptly attended to. Mechatronic part of the engine was replaced during warranty period and extended warranty period has been given for certain parts of the car.
It was stated across the Bar that as on date of hearing, mileage of the car is more than 29,000 kms.
There is not deficiency in service as alleged in attending the required repairs/replacement of parts under warranty and for this purpose, the opponents relied on the job cards produced by the complainant. For want of service/replacement of certain parts as and when required, deficiency in service is not alleged by the complainant. However, complainant does not desire to continue the use of car for repeated repairs required to be undertaken.
Therefore, complainant has prayed for directions to settle by way of claim to the extent of `33,75,460/-. The fact remains that the car has been used for more than 29,000 kms during the warranty period and almost for 3 years.
[4] Though at this stage, we are not touching upon the merit of the case, but certain facts are required to be dealt with primarily to decide the point of admission of this complaint.
[5] Contention of the opponents that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint is not tenable since service required to be rendered in case of automobiles though in the name of company is covered as consumer in the decision in the matter of Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. vs. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt.Ltd. & anr. [IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)] passed by the Honble National Commission. Arguments of the complainant are not tenable since timely service/replacement of warranted parts has been carried out as the job card relied by the complainant themselves. After having used the car for almost three years, prayer for replacement of the car/refund, prima-facie, does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of opponents. Therefore, we do not find any substance to admit and adjudicate the consumer complaint for final decision. Hence, the complaint is not admitted and rejected in limine.
Pronounced Dated 10th April 2014.
[HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S. Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER pgg