State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Synapse Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs Jai Auto & Ors. on 23 March, 2023
C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 08.02.2012
Date of Hearing: 17.02.2023
Date of Decision: 23.03.2023
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 40/2012
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT LTD,
391, ZAKIR NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
(Through: Mr. Shri Singh & Ravi Kapoor, Advocates)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. JAI AUTO,
(A DIVISION OF J.S.B AUTO PVT LTD)
AUTHORISED DEALER FOR SKODA AUTO INDIA
A-38/39, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110044.
(Through: Anil Kumar &Associates, Advocates)
2. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD,
A1/1 MIDC FIVE STAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
SHENDRA, AURANGABAD-431201.
(Through: Singhania & Associates, Advocates)
3. CONTINENTAL AUTO SERVICES,
AUTHORISED DEALER FOR SKODA AUTO INDIA,
A-13, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110044.
(Through: Mr.Raj Kumar & Ms Naina Walia, Advocate)
...Opposite Parties
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 12
C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Purohit Chaturvedi, counsel for the Complainant
None for Opposite Party No.1.
Mr. Vipin Singhania and Ms. Menak Joshi, counsel for
Opposite Party No.2.
None for Opposite Party No.3.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service and manufacturing defect by the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following:
a) Award a sum of Rs. 16,73,398/- (Rs. Sixteen Lacks seventy three thousand and three hundred and ninety eight only) towards the cost of the said Vehicle along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of claim till payment.
b) Award a sum Of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rs. Four lacks fifty Thousand) towards Taxi rentals and driver fees, along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the expenditure.
c) Award a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs Ten lacks) towards compensation for loss and damages caused due to the deficiency of services provided by the Opposite Parties.
d) Award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs One Lacks) towards compensation for expenses, including legal fees etc.
e) Award a sum Of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs Five lacks) as punitive damages for the negligence of the Opposite parties.
f) The complainant further craves the leave of this Hon'ble commission to amend and add any fact/facts that may come to the knowledge of the complainant and to amend the DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 present complaint and to pray appropriate relief accordingly.
g) Any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 purchased a 2007 model Skoda Laura car from the Opposite Party No.3 having registration No. DL3FBC9000 in January 2007. In October 2010, at the suggestion of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and on the basis of a complaint, the flywheel part of the vehicle was changed at the cost of Rs.87,319 to the Complainant. However, the same complaint reoccurred and on 19.08.2011 the said vehicle was brought to the Opposite Party No.1 by the Complainant in proper running condition but there was some extraneous noise and vibration coming from the said vehicle. On 05.09.2011, the vehicle was delivered to the Opposite Party No.1 in working condition for replacement of the flywheel under warranty under their advisement, however on 10.09.2011, the Opposite Party No.1 handed over another job card to the Complainant stating therein that there was inter alia a problem with the Mechatronic Part. The Complainant was assured that the replacement would be carried out under the "goodwill" policy. The Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 29.09.2011 informed the Complainant that the goodwill request for the said Mechatronic part is not being considered due to the non-providing of the service record for the said vehicle before 22,000 km and the goodwill would be borne by between the Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainant. The Complainant was subsequently informed that the Mechatronic part has been replaced but now the entire gearbox of the said vehicle needs to be changed entailing an expected cost of Rs.4,50,000 which the Complainant shall bear. Despite repeated DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 communication with the Opposite Parties through letters and emails, the Opposite Parties failed to provide any form of reasonable service to resolve the issue with the Complainant. Aggrieved by the failure of the Opposite Parties to deliver the vehicle back, the Complainant sent legal notice dated 19.11.2011 to the Opposite Parties claiming immediate delivery of the car or refund of the cost of the car.
3. The Complainant has alleged that the said vehicle was entrusted to the Opposite Party No.1 in working condition and upon inspection, no defect in the gearbox was found and as such the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are responsible for rendering the said vehicle useless on account of gross negligence and manhandling of the same. It is further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have caused damage to the side vehicle which was entrusted to them and was in their custody and now refuses to repair the same unless the Complainant makes an advance for payment of Rs.1,00,00 and the damage to the vehicle is directly attributable to their failure and gross negligence in their handling of the said vehicle when it was in the custody of the Opposite Party No.1. Lastly it is contended that the significant issues arising every now and then in the major parts of the vehicle i.e the gearbox, Mechatronic part, etc reflect the poor quality of the vehicle on account of manufacturing defects and have caused a great deal of mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant as he was forced to pay for repair charges running into lacs, taxi rentals and ultimately to buy a new car. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint before this Commission.
4. The Opposite Parties have separately filed written statement to the present complaint wherein the Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has stated therein that the vehicle was purchased on 14.01.2007 from the Opposite DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 Party No.3 and during the period from its purchase till 19.07.2011, the vehicle met with accidents on three occasions firstly on 11.12.2009, secondly on 15.02.2010 and lastly on 29.9.2010. Secondly, it is submitted that as per the warranty manual, the warranty of the vehicle automatically terminates if the vehicle met with an accident. Lastly, it is submitted that the Complainant does not fall in the category of a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
5. The Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has stated therein that the complaint has been filed post expiry of 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle and as such the warranty stands expired after 2 years from the date of purchase. Secondly, it is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 share a relationship of independent contractors and/or principals and not that of principal and agent respectively, therefore the Opposite Party No.2 cannot be held liable vicariously or otherwise for the acts or omissions of the Opposite Party No.1. Further, it is submitted that in the absence of Expert Opinion, the allegation as to the manufacturing defect is not tenable. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of the fact that the vehicle had logged more than 86,702 kms on 10.09.2011 over 56 months from the date of purchase, it cannot be construed that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect.
6. The Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has stated therein that it is no more the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.2 and as such the complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.3. It is further submitted that the entire dispute pertains to Opposite Party No.1 & 2 being the servicing dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle and Opposite Party No.3 has been wrongly impleaded in the present case.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023
7. The Complainant has filed its Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties. The Evidence by way of Affidavit of the parties and written arguments of the Opposite Parties are on record.
8. We have perused the material on record and heard the parties at length.
9. The first question that falls for our determination is whether the Complainant - a Private Limited Company falls within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act .To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
"Section 2(1)(d) Consumer" means any person who- i. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or ii. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
10. According to Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "person" includes:
"(i) a firm whether registered or not
(ii) a Hindu undivided family
(iii) a co-operative society;
(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not".
11. In this regard we deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors vs Ashok Iron Works Pvt Ltd 2009 (3) SCC 240 wherein the issue before the Supreme Court pertained to whether a private company purchasing electricity for commercial purpose can be included within the ambit of term consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The Apex Court while delivering the judgement in favour of Ashok Iron Works Limited held that company is a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under -
"Section 2(1)(m) which enumerates four categories namely, (i) a firm whether registered or not; (ii) a Hindu undivided family; (iii) a co-operative society; and (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not while defining `person' cannot be held to be DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 restrictive and confined to these four categories as it is not said in terms that `person' shall mean one or other of the things which are enumerated, but that it shall `include' them. Section 2(1)(m), is beyond all questions, an interpretation clause, and must have been intended by the Legislature to be taken into account in construing the expression `person' as it occurs in Section 2(1)(d). While defining `person' in Section 2(1)(m), the Legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person like company. As a matter of fact, the four categories by way of enumeration mentioned therein is indicative, categories (i), (ii) &
(iv) being unincorporate and category (iii) corporate, of its intention to include body corporate as well as body un-
incorporate. The definition of `person' in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive. It does not appear to us to admit of any doubt that company is a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) and we hold accordingly"
12. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not left any room for confusion by widening the definition of "consumer" and has included within its ambit corporate bodies. Thus, we are of the view that it is an established position of law that a company can be a consumer and we answer this point accordingly in favour of the Complainant.
13. The second question before us is whether the present Complaint is barred by limitation as the present complaint has been filed after the lapse of 5 years from the date of purchase of the said vehicle.
14. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-
section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
15. Analysis of the above statutory provision, it leads us to the conclusion that this Commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cause of action lastly arose when the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 informed the Complainant about the problem in the entire gearbox of the said vehicle vide email dated 10.11.2011 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2012.Therefore, the Complaint is treated to have been filed within the limitation period.
16. Having dealt with the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties, the third issue that falls for our consideration is whether the vehicle in question suffered from any manufacturing defect.
17. Here, it is pertinent to note that the Complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to indicate that the vehicle in question suffered a manufacturing defect. At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total refund of the price of the vehicle, the Complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. The opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential input. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble National Commission in a number of cases has held that unless this onus is satisfactorily DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 discharged by the Complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts. When the present case is considered in this backdrop, it cannot be said that the Complainant has been able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Merely because the car had been taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 several times or because a number of letters/complaints had been addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the Opposite Party No.2 -manufacturing company, it will not by itself amount to manufacturing defect.
18. Further, under catena of judgments namely "EID Parry Vs. Baby Benjamin-I [1992] CPJ 279, Tata Motors Vs. Sunil Bhasin - III [2008] CPJ 111, Chandreshwar Vs. Telco- I [2007] CPJ 2, Diamond Cement Vs. Rai Prexim India Pvt. Ltd. I [2003] CPJ 1 and Lovely Vs. Harmesh Lal - I [2007] CPJ 312." on similar issues, the Hon‟ble National Commission has held that expert opinion is a condition precedent for establishing manufacturing defect.
19. From the aforesaid holdings of the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that firstly the onus of proof is upon the Complainant to prove that the purchased vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. However, in the present case, no expert opinion or evidence has been filed by Complainant to prove that the said car broke down due to any manufacturing defect. Therefore, devoid of any evidence, we are not convinced with the claim that the said car suffered from any manufacturing defect.
20. We also deem it appropriate to refer to "Santosh Devi Vs. Hyundai South Regional & Ors", reported as (2012) 3 CPJ 529 (NC), wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with the similar matter, upheld the impugned judgment of the concerned State DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 Commission. The relevant portion is reproduced below for the ready reference:
"The very fact that the said car within a span of three years 2 months run more than 60000 Kms. speaks that there is no inherent manufacturing defect with the said car and the problem with the said car is rather created by the Complainant herself. When that is so, she is bound to pay the repair charges. If she abandoned the said car and failed to take the delivery of the same by paying repair charges, she has to thank herself. When Complainant is at fault, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the Ops. Viewed from any angle, complaint appears to be devoid of merit."
21. Further, in "Ajita Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Teleco I (2007) CPJ 204 and Swaraj Mazade Vs. P.K. Chak Kapoor" reported as "II (2005) CPJ 72"
wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"In the case in hand, the Complainant had not filed report or affidavit of any expert to say that there was any manufacturing defect. Extensive use of car also destroyed the case of the Complainant that car had any manufacturing defect"
22. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the question of the refunding the entire amount of the car doesn't arise in the light of the fact that the vehicle has logged in more than 86,702 kilometres on 10.09.2011 i.e. over 56 months from the date of purchase. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle could not have run so much. Moreover, the defects in the vehicle arose after the determination of the warranty. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had the obligation to repair the vehicle till the warranty was in subsistence and beyond that there is no obligation put up on the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 by any other law to repair the vehicle free of cost.
23. Therefore, keeping in view the law settled by the Hon'ble National Commission and the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 12 C.NO./40/2012 M/S SYNAPSE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. VS JAI AUTO & ANR D.O.D. 28.03.2023 Complainant in the present case failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
24. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and legal position explained supra, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is being devoid of any merit. Consequently, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
25. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
26. A copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
27. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 12