National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rakesh Jain vs Audi India & 2 Ors. on 6 September, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1084 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 22/05/2019 in Complaint No. 119/2018 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. RAKESH JAIN HOUSE NO. F-9, PREET VIHR. DELHI-110092. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AUDI INDIA & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3RD & 4TH FLOOR, SILVER UTOPIA CARDINAL GRACIOUS ROAD, CHAKLA ANDHERI EAST. MUMBAI. MAHARASHTRA-400051/93. 2. AUDI GURGAON ZENICA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. PLOT NO. 288 A, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-IV. GURGAON. HARYANA-122016 3. MR. RUPERT STADLER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AUDI AG. AUTO-UNION-ROAD-1 85045 INGOLSTADT BAVARIA, GERMANY. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. TARUN DIWAN AND PYARI, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENTS : MS. EKTA BHASIN AND
MR. SANIDHYA SONTHALIA, ADVOCATES FOR R- 1 & 3
R-2 EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2023.
Dated : 06 September 2024 ORDER
1. The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (the Act"), against the Order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana ("State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 119 of 2018, whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint of the Appellant/Complainant.
2. As per report of the Registry, there is 10 days delay in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in IA/10419/2019 the delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are hereinafter being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant is that he purchased an Audi Car Model A8L W12 from the original owner, Mr. Melroy Dsouza, for Rs. 50,00,000/- through the seller, Ms. Masquare Automobile Pvt. Ltd. (Audi Mumbai South). Subsequently, the vehicle was brought to Delhi and registered with Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi, by a receipt dated 14.10.2016, after following the necessary procedures. Complainant faced persistent issues with the vehicle, which necessitated multiple repairs at the service centre of OP-2. Over a period of one and a half years, the Complainant used the vehicle for only two months. During the remainder of this period, the vehicle was repeatedly serviced, with repair visits recorded on the following dates: 20.08.2016, 07.09.2016, 20.03.2017, 08.04.2017, 19.04.2017, 21.04.2017, 15.05.2017, 24.08.2017, 28.08.2017, 26.09.2017, 05.10.2017, 23.10.2017, 06.11.2017, 18.11.2017, and 20.11.2017. The vehicle remained at the service centre for an extended period, and on 15.05.2017, OP-2 only replaced certain parts rather than effecting comprehensive repairs. It is the case of the Complainant that before taking delivery of the car he had stipulated conditions that sought for extended warranty for one year without charge and the commitment that in case there is a fault again in the vehicle, the OPs would replace the vehicle with a new one, but OPs did not address these conditions. Alleging a deficiency in service for the prolonged service periods and incomplete repairs Complainant filed Complaint No. 119/2018.
Top of Form5. In its reply before the State Commission, OP-1 contended that that the Complainant did not come under the definition of "consumer" as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the vehicle is registered in the name of AK Capital Finance Pvt Ltd, a commercial entity. OP-1's obligation was confined to repairs and replacement of parts for the car purchased under warranty, which was done. The complainant acquired the pre-owned vehicle from Mr. Melroy Dsouza which was initially registered in June 2016 and the Audi Approved Plus warranty, valid from 19.12.2015 to 18.12.2017 was transferred to the complainant from the previous owner. Despite OP-1 issuing several invoices dated 20.03.2017 and 27.02.2017, which were subsequently waived, they did not accept delivery of the vehicle after the necessary repairs were completed on 06.11.2017. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to the relief sought, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, while OP-2 and 3 were already proceeding ex parte.
6. The learned State Commission vide order dated 22.05.2019 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:
"The complaint could not satisfy this Commission as to under what circumstances, the warranty period could be ended and the parts of the vehicle could be changed, particularly when the complainant has purchased the old vehicle from Mr. Melroy Dsouza, who had also purchased the car as preowned car. As a Consequence, thereof, whatever the contentions have been raised on behalf of the Complainant have been found to be untenable without any force and merit, while concurring the arguments advanced by the council for the O.Ps. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, all the pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of."
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 the Complainant filed this Appeal no. 1084 of 2019 praying as below:
"(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Panchkula, Haryana in Complaint No. 119 of 2018 titled as "Rakesh Jain Vs. Audi India and Ors";
(b) Direct the Opposite parties to extend the warranty for one year without claiming additional fee for the same and replace the said car with the new car if any default occurred in the car.
(c) Award damages for loss of enjoyment of the car, for embarrassment, mental agony and physical harassment of sum of Rs 24,00,000/-.
(d) Grant compensation on account of Depreciation of the Car which comes to approx Rs 25,00,000;
(e) Allow cost of the litigation expenses of the Complainant;
(f) Pass any other order(s) direction(s) as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances."
8. In the grounds of the instant appeal, the Appellant/Complainant has mainly contended the following:
The State Commission failed to consider that the vehicle was in their use for a shorter period and remained at the service centre for long.
The State Commission neglected to account for the fact that the car warranty elapsed due to its prolonged possession by OP-2.
The State Commission failed to recognize that despite being in the service station for extended periods, such as six months and two months at a time, the defects were not resolved.
The State Commission failed to note that the complainant could not use the car, resulting in its depreciation and significant financial loss.
The State Commission is silent on the facts pleaded by the Complainant and the impugned order does not give any reasoning for the same.
9. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued and reiterated the grounds of appeal and contended that they had purchased an Audi A8L W12 from Mr. Melroy Dsouza, and at the time of purchase, the vehicle was covered under an extended warranty valid from 19.12.2015 to 18.12.2017. On 13.08.2016, the vehicle, which was experiencing a malfunction with the front left-hand side seat, was sent to OP-2 for repairs and was returned on 20.08.2016. However, the problem persisted, leading the complainant to file another complaint on 27.08.2016. The vehicle was re-submitted on 07.09.2016 to address the original issue and additional problems, such as low engine oil. A communication dated 07.12.2016 from OP-2 detailed several issues identified during inspection, including persistent low engine oil levels, which remained unresolved despite multiple repair attempts. He asserted that the complainant sought information on repair completion timelines but received unsatisfactory responses, including delays attributed to unavailable tools. On 24.01.2017, the appellant expressed concerns about the prolonged repair period and the lack of a substitute vehicle, and was informed that the base engine would be replaced, with delivery expected in early February 2017. They faced further delays and inadequate responses, including lack of a confirmed timeline and failure to provide a substitute vehicle. The vehicle, repaired and returned on 20.03.2017, continued to exhibit issues and required additional repairs, with ongoing problems leading to continued inconvenience and a substantial portion of the warranty period consumed by repairs. He argued that the learned State Commission failed to consider the warranty coverage for pre-owned vehicles and the substantial time the vehicle spent in the service centre. It did not acknowledge that the extended warranty was consumed by the repair period, nor did it address the complainant's reasonable request for a warranty extension or replacement due to the inherent defects and persistent breakdowns. He asserted that the vehicle's repeated failures and prolonged period of non-availability constituted a significant breach of warranty and rights of a consumer, entitling the complainant to either a new vehicle or a refund of expenses, along with damages for mental and physical distress caused by the defective product.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the OP-1 contended that the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned State Commission was well-reasoned and based on a thorough appreciation of the facts, and thus required no interference. He relied on Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Limited [(2024) 1 SCC 8], and argued that the Complainant lacked standing under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986, because the vehicle was purchased in the name of "AK Capital Finance Pvt. Ltd." for commercial purposes, and there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP. He also relied on Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra & Ors. [I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)] and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Ors. [I (2009) CPJ 229 (NC)], and asserted that the Complainant failed to prove a manufacturing defect, a significant requirement in consumer law and noted that a manufacturing defect involved a serious flaw, not merely a part replacement. He asserted that the complaint primarily addressed alleged deficiencies in service, and not a manufacturing defect. Counsel further emphasized that the relationship between OP-1 (the manufacturer) and OP-2 (the dealer) was principal-to-principal, absolving OP-1 from liability for any service deficiencies by OP-2. This argument was reinforced by placing reliance on Tata Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 125], which held that a manufacturer was not liable for service deficiencies of a dealer under a principal-to-principal relationship. They also highlighted that the complainant had extensively used the vehicle, as evidenced by its high mileage, undermining claims of a manufacturing defect. Additionally, he pointed that the complainant had suppressed material facts, including the commercial nature of the car's purchase and previous consumer complaints, and had abandoned the vehicle at the dealer's workshop. They supported this contention by relying on Manager, Premanchal Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Ramdas S/o Shri Khayaliram & Ors. [II (2009) CPJ 98 (NC)], which noted the abandonment of the vehicle as a significant factor. He further argued that the prayer for replacement of the car was not maintainable as it was unsubstantiated, with no evidence of a manufacturing defect, and primarily concerned servicing deficiencies, thus, a replacement of a new car could not be granted. He also relied on the following judgments:
A. R.D.S. Projects Ltd. v. Scoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (2019 SCC Online NCDRC 385).
B. Escorts Construction Equipment Limited Ranyodh Singh [2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 648].
C. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. [(1994) 1 SCC 1] D. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji [(2013) 4 CPJ 444 (NC)] E. Maruti Udyog Ltd, v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. [(2006) 4 SCC 644]
11. I have examined the pleading and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties.
12. The main issue to be determined is whether the Complainant is entitled for an extended warranty owing to the alleged deficiency in service? If so, whether the complainant is entitled for a new vehicle or refund of consideration?
13. It is undisputed that the complainant purchased a pre-owned Audi A8L W12 from Mr. Melroy Dsouza and the vehicle was registered with the Transport Department GNCT Delhi on 14.10.2016. At the time of purchase, the vehicle was covered under an extended warranty valid from 19.12.2015 to 18.12.2017, confirmed vide letter dated 15.03.2016. It is undisputed that the car was sent to service station on a number of occasions and was repaired but the Complainant remained unsatisfied. It is clear from the email dated 06.11.2017 that the Complainant was offered to take back the car as the same was repaired and ready for delivery. We see no ground as to why the complainant would refuse to take such delivery and leave the car unattended despite the same being repaired and within the period of warranty at that point. In Manager, Premanchal Motors Put. Ltd. and Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Ramdas S/o Shri Khayaliram & Ors. [II (2009) CPJ98 (NC)], decided on 16.03.2009, this Commission observed as herein under:
"In our considered view, as an ordinary practice such abandonment of a new vehicle soon after its purchase or after repairs, at the premises of the manufacturer or the dealer concerned, is not prudent conduct on the part of a consumer, even if the consumer has justified grounds for serious dissatisfaction with the performance of the new vehicle or even after its repairs. In the best of circumstances, such abandonment is entirely to the disadvantage of the consumer for the vehicle can only deteriorate if left in the so-called care of an indifferent dealer who too may have his own reasons to feel aggrieved that his repairs bills and garage charges remain unpaid. ... If they had reasons to feel unhappy with the condition of the tractor even after repeated repairs during the warranty period, they could file a consumer complaint, which they did in this case even before the warranty period was over. Therefore, they had no reason to go to the extent of abandoning the tractor altogether at the garage/workshop of the same dealer against which they had filed the complaint."
14. It is also pertinent to mention Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr, [2006 (4) SCC 644], decided on 29.03.2006, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the warranty obligation the manufacturer was obliged to replace only a part and therefore, there was no obligation to replace the entire vehicle. Furthermore, in Classic Automobiles Vs Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), decided on 04.08.2009, it was held as under:-
"16... The District Forum could have appointed an expert of its own, based upon whose findings; a finding could be recorded with regard to the manufacturing defect. In the absence of any expert evidence, merely on the fact that the car was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs/rectifications, it cannot be held that there was a manufacturing defect in the car . Whenever the car was brought to the service station, it was attended to by the petitioner. The petitioner is the service provider of the car and Counsel for complainant/respondent No. 1 was unable to show any deficiency on the part of the petitioner in attending to the car whenever it was brought to the petitioner's service station."
15. The above precedents make it clear that for a replacement of vehicle, the complainant ought to have produced some expert opinion contesting a manufacturing defect, which he has failed to do. Mere, allegations of defect or deficiency, do not entitle him to a replacement with a new vehicle. Further, the complainant is also not entitled to an extension of warranty as the he was unable to prove any relevant grounds for the same. From the facts on record, it is clear that every time the complainant had given his vehicle for repair, the OP attended to the same, thus, we find no deficiency in service in the same.
16. After due consideration of the facts, precedents and aforesaid deliberations, I see no reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned order of the learned State Commission dated 22.05.2019. The FA No. 1084 of 2019 is, therefore, dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER