State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. vs Rita Devi on 16 May, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.53/2014
Date of Presentation: 21.02.2014
Date of Decision: 16.05.2014
..................................................................................
M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Limited,
Village & Post Office Gutkar, Tehsil Sadar,
District Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Whole Time Director.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
Rita Devi, wife of Shri Surjeet Singh,
Resident of Village Khorar, Post Office Galore,
Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.,
Through Special Power of Attorney Holder,
Rahul Kumar, son of Shri Surjeet Singh,
Resident of Village Khorar, Post Office Galore,
Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.
.......... Respondent.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, a 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Rita Devi, through her Special Power of Attorney- Rahul Kumar against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to refund the amount of `54,388/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which was charged, on account of price of fuel injector and also to pay `10,000/-, as compensation and another sum of `3,000/-, as costs.
2. Respondent-complainant purchased a new Swift Diesel Car, in October, 2011, with extended warranty upto October, 2014. According to the respondent-complainant, in the month of July, 2012, vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellant, who is the Authorised Service provider appointed by the manufacturer of the vehicle and the same was returned after service. Vehicle was driven for just 60 Kilometres, after that service, when it again started giving trouble and, therefore, it was again taken to the workshop of the appellant.
3. Respondent-complainant was informed, through her son/attorney, Rahul Kumar, who had taken the vehicle to the workshop that injectors were Page 2 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ damaged and needed replacement. Respondent- complainant was required to pay a sum of `54,388/-, on account of replacement of injectors, despite the fact that the vehicle was still within warranty period. On the aforesaid allegations, respondent-complainant prayed for issuance of a direction to the appellant to refund the sum of `54,388/- charged from her, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation cost.
4. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that though the vehicle was within warranty period, as pleaded by the respondent, yet the warranty card very categorically provided that Emission Warranty was subject to the condition that adulterated fuel was not used and the vehicle, in question, at the time of checking and inspection, was found to have had adulterated fuel, in the fuel tank, which damaged the injectors and, hence, the benefit of warranty was not available to the respondent- complainant. It was also stated that injectors were replaced, on payment basis, after obtaining the respondent's son's consent, in writing. Page 3 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________
5. Parties adduced evidence. Respondent submitted, Annexure C-3, extended warranty, together with its terms and conditions. She did not submit the original warranty card itself. The same was submitted by the appellant-opposite party, as Annexure O-1. The respondent-complainant also submitted job card dated 25th July, 2012, Annexure C-5, while the appellant-opposite party submitted it's photostat copy, Annexure O-4.
6. Learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellant with the complaint, necessitating replacement of injectors, on 25th July, 2012. A job card, Annexure C-5, was prepared. First copy of Annexure C-5 was handed over to the respondent's son and attorney, Rahul Kumar. As per this job card, vehicle was to be delivered back (after repair) on 26th July, 2012, at 6.00 p.m. A photostat copy of Annexure C-5, produced by the appellant-opposite party, is Annexure O-4. On this Annexure O-4, purported Page 4 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ consent of the attorney of the respondent- complainant for replacement of injector, on payment basis, is recorded. This writing is dated 30th July, 2012.
9. Appellant-opposite party tendered in evidence affidavits of Mohinder Singh, its Customer Care Manager and Tej Ram, Technical Advisor, who testified that injector got damaged, necessitating replacement, because of use of adulterated fuel and this fact was brought to the notice of the son/attorney of the respondent-complainant and replacement was carried out, on payment basis, after obtaining the consent of the said son/attorney.
10. Of course, in the rejoinder, respondent- complainant denied that consent of her attorney/son was obtained, yet, while leading evidence in the form of affidavit of her son/attorney, it was not denied that consent was given by the son/ attorney for the replacement of injector.
11. Learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant submits that the aforesaid noting on Annexure O-4, regarding replacement of injector, on payment basis, with the consent of Rahul Page 5 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ Kumar, son/attorney of the respondent-complainant, is manufactured. In support of the plea, he submits that no such writing is available on the original of document, Annexure C-5, which was issued to the respondent's son/attorney. Submission has been noted, only to be rejected.
12. Annexure C-5, as also it's copy, Annexure O-4, were prepared on 25.07.2012, when the vehicle was left by the son/attorney of the respondent- complainant at the workshop of the appellant. Vehicle was to be delivered back on the next following day, i.e. on 26.07.2012 at 6.00 p.m. It is the respondent's own case that vehicle was delivered back on 22nd August, 2012, and not on 26th July, 2012.
13. It appears that when the vehicle was sought to be repaired, after the same was left at the workshop of the appellant, on 25.07.2012, it was noticed that the injector required replacement because of its having got damaged, due to use of adulterated fuel and this fact was then recorded on the duplicate copy, available with the appellant, of which, Annexure O-4, is the photostat copy. Respondent's son/attorney has not denied his Page 6 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ signature on Annexure O-4, below the writing for replacement of injector, on payment basis.
14. The above stated position apart, vehicle after replacement of injector was handed over to the respondent's son/attorney on 22nd August, 2012, after he paid a sum of `54,588/- against Job Card Retail Cash Memo., Annexure C-4. There is specific mention on this Cash Memo. that on checking, it was found that there was adulterated fuel in the fuel tank and the adulterated fuel had caused defect in the injector assembly and, therefore, respondent-complainant had been charged for the replaced parts.
15. Respondent filed the complaint in March, 2013. Between August, 2012, when the Job Card Cash Memo. was issued and March, 2013, when the complaint was filed, no protest was lodged by the respondent-complainant with the appellant with regard to charging price of the injector.
16. Warranty card, as already noticed, was not placed on record by the respondent-complainant and we have every reason to believe that it was not produced deliberately, because one of the conditions, Page 7 of 8 M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Versus Rita Devi (F.A. No.53/2014) ____________________________________________________________ under which Emission Warranty is not applicable, i.e. condition No.7 is the use of adulterated fuel.
17. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent- complainant, is dismissed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member May 16, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 8 of 8