State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Alok Singh Parihar vs Grand Motors & Anr. on 17 April, 2023
Appeal Nos.: Alok Singh Parihar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/19/102 Vs. 17/04/2023
Grand Motors & Anr.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 14/02/2019
Date of Final Hearing: 17/04/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 17/04/2023
APPEAL No.- FA/19/102
IN THE MATTER OF :
Alok Singh Parihar, S/o. Shri Rajlallan Singh Parihar,
R/o. Vill. & Post- Puran, P.S. Mungeli,
Dist. MUNGELI (C.G.)
Through: Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate,
... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Grand Motors,
Through: Manager, Grand Motors National Highway No.200,
Bilaspur - Raipur Main Road, Sirgitti (Skoda Showroom),
Dist. BILASPUR (C.G.)
Through: Proceeded ex-parte.
... Respondent No.1.
2. Skoda Auto India,
Through : Manager, Plot No.N/1, Shentra Power Star,
Industrial Area M.I.D.C. T. Q. &
Dist. AURANGABAD - 431 201 (MAHARASHTRA)
Through: Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate
... Respondent No.2.
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent No.1 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.02.2023. None appeared for respondent No.2. (Written argument already filed on previous date of hearing 06.03.2023) O R A L O R DE R PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), is directed against order dated 09/01/2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred as "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/455/2016, filed by the complainant/ appellant herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties/respondents herein, in not repairing the vehicle in question DISMISSED Page 1 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Alok Singh Parihar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/19/102 Vs. 17/04/2023
Grand Motors & Anr.
during warranty period and seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of total Rs.11,60,000/- on different heads i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.08.2015 as entire price of the vehicle & Rs.3,60,000/- on account of mental agony and transportation expenses and cost of litigation was also sought by the complainant / appellant herein. The complaint was allowed and the opposite parties/respondents herein were directed to repair the vehicle in question free of cost and to hand over it to the complainant/ appellant herein within thirty days. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of litigation were also directed to be paid within thirty days. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 02.11.2013 the appellant / complainant purchased a Skoda Rapid car from the respondent No.1 on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- cash. On 28.03.2014 the appellant got his vehicle serviced for the problem of vibration of engine and turbo. In January 2015, the problem of turbo of the vehicle increased then it was brought to the service centre of the respondent No.1, it was kept there for two months then it was returned to the complainant on the saying that the problem has been fixed. But in fact the problem remained as it was. Then again the vehicle was given to respondent No.1 for fixing the problem of turbo and since then the vehicle is with the respondent No.1 and no information was given by them about the problem of turbo in the vehicle in question. The complainant contended that at present manufacturing of the model of vehicle in question has been stopped by the company and this fact was well within knowledge of the respondents, hence since August 2015 the vehicle is with respondent No.1 unrepaired for want of DISMISSED Page 2 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Alok Singh Parihar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/19/102 Vs. 17/04/2023
Grand Motors & Anr.
requisite parts. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service for not repairing the vehicle in question during warranty period, the complaint was filed seeking directions to the respondents as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
3. The respondent No.1/ opposite party No.1 remained unrepresented before the District Forum even after service of notice hence was proceeded ex-parte.
4. Respondent No.2 filed its written version and refuted the allegations of deficiency in service mainly on the ground that when on 24/08/2015 the vehicle was brought for servicing the turbo charger of the vehicle found failed but the said problem of the vehicle was out of scope of warranty and its repairing was not covered under warranty. It was further averred that the in March 2015 oil sump of the vehicle got damaged and due to running the vehicle in such situation of lack of oil, the problem developed in the vehicle. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum considering the rival contentions of both parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties/ respondents to repair the vehicle and to pay compensation within thirty days as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
6. We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant perused the record of the District Forum as well as the written arguments submitted by respondent No.2 on last date of hearing i.e. 06.03.2023.
7. In sum and substance the ground of appeal is that manufacturing of model of the vehicle in question has been stopped by the manufacturer DISMISSED Page 3 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Alok Singh Parihar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/19/102 Vs. 17/04/2023
Grand Motors & Anr.
respondent No.2, hence the vehicle is not repairable and it is kept idle for a long time since August 2015 which has caused further damages to the vehicle like its engine and other parts etc. also, hence this appeal may be allowed and order for refund of the amount as claimed in the complaint may be passed.
8. Merely on the saying of the appellant/ complainant that the manufacturing of the model of vehicle in question has been stopped by the manufacturer so the vehicle is irreparable is not sufficient to draw any such conclusion. This fact has neither been proved by any evidence or has been admitted by the respondent No.2 that manufacture of the said model has been stopped. On the contrary in paragraph No.13 of written statement the respondent No.2 has specifically stated that the vehicle is kept ready after repairing but the appellant / complainant himself has not received the vehicle.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the above situation, in fact after passing of the impugned order the appellant/ complainant ought to have filed execution case for execution of the impugned order and let the version or stand of the respondent No.2 come from their side on record on the point whatever contentions has been made by the complainant. If in the respondent No.2 comes with a case that the vehicle is irreparable then the situation and the remedy available to the appellant / complainant would have been different. So far as finding of the District Forum is concerned, there is no challenge to it except the direction regarding repairing of the vehicle. We are of the considered view that the impugned order is just and appropriate and calls for no interference.
DISMISSED Page 4 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Alok Singh Parihar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/19/102 Vs. 17/04/2023
Grand Motors & Anr.
10. Therefore, at this situation we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by District Forum is just and proper, calls for no interference, hence the same is affirmed. No order as to cost.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Gopal Chandra Shil)
President Member
/04/2023 /04/2023
Pronounced On: 17th April 2023
DISMISSED Page 5 of 5