State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suresh.K.G. vs Fca India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on 30 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/177/2018 ( Date of Filing : 19 Apr 2018 ) 1. Suresh.K.G. S/o Gurusiddappa, Aged about 42 years, R/a Flat No.003, G.R.Lavender Apartment, J.P.Nagar 7th phase, Bangalore-560078 Rep. by his SPA holder Nagaprakash.R.Jambigi ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Regd. office 1601 (III), 16th floor, B Wing, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, G block, BAndra Kurla complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, India. Rep. by its Managing Director 2. KHT Agencies Pvt. Ltd Old No.15A, New No.44, Industrial Sub Urb, Service road, RMC yard post, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022 Rep. by its Manager ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 30 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:19.04.2018 Date of Disposal:30.06.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 30th Day of June 2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 177/2018 ORDER
BY HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct OPs to replace the car to the complainant or to direct OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.22,85,000/- of the car (on road) paid by the complainant for purchasing the car. Further to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the travel and miscellaneous expenses incurred in getting the vehicle serviced for about 04 times in a span of 04 months from the date of delivery of car and also for mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also to direct OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and such other reliefs as the Commission deems fit to meet the ends of justice.
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is stated below:
Complainant being passionate about the cars and more particularly about Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), decided to purchase "Jeep Compass" had approached OP2 being the authorized dealer of FIAT/FCA and paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2017 to book the said car.However, it was informed that as there was an issue in limited variant production, the complainant will have to wait for 15 days until the product is manufactured.In the first week of September, 2017, OP informed complainant that the car booked by him was manufactured and ready for delivery.The total cost of the car including RTO registration and insurance was Rs.22,85,000/-.Complainant immediately paid the balance sum of Rs.21,85,000/- and took the delivery of the car, bearing registration No.KA-04-MT-7466.It is submitted that within few days of purchasing and usage of the car, the complainant observed severe problems and defects with the Car like non-alignment of rear doors of the car to quarter panel, leaking rear strut suspension, lateral movement of the Car on smooth highway above speed of 80 kmph, rear tail lights and front head assembly fogging in rain, etc.Complainant immediately informed the said defects and problems faced by him to OP2 representative and took the car for service center of OP2.Further it is submitted that just few days after getting the Car serviced, there was a leakage in the car transmission oil.OP2 checked and realized that there was a defect and replaced the gear box oil seal.It is submitted that in order to close the issue and not to escalate, OPs, indirectly offered perks by extending the warranty and also a complimentary service at 15,000km.It is submitted that complainant also questioned OP2 as to why he was given a car manufactured in June, 2017 batch, when he was made to wait till August, 2017, stating that the car was yet to be manufactured. OP failed to provide satisfactory answer and instead gave a very vague reply.It is further submitted that although the Car is June, 2017 manufactured, bearing VIN no.MCAAJPCY3JFA0050486H, OP2 falsely stated that the car was July, 2017.Complainant kept facing many problems with the oil leakage, non-alignment, etc., requested OP2 to replace the car.However, OP2 denied the request and told that they would repair all the defects and problems and deliver the car. Although complainant asked to provide guarantee for the repair, failing which, OP2 ought to replace the car, OP2 did not even have faith in their service/repair and denied the said offer.It is submitted that, any consumer, who buys a firsthand product, by paying a huge amount, expects the product to be free from any problems and defects and to enjoy it without any interruption.But complainant had to make trips to the service centre several times and inspite of the assurances made by OPs, still has many issues.Thus alleged deficiency of service and filed the present complaint to get redress of his grievance.
Upon service of notice, OPs appeared through learned counsels and contested the matter. OP1 in its version submits that FCA India Automobiles Private Limited sells cars with manufacturer's warranty to its Authorized Dealers under Principal to Principal relationship on whole sale basis, after pre-delivery inspection duly carried out by the Dealer upon receipt of the vehicle at Dealer's stockyard or showroom as the case may be as per the standard practice. Once the cars are sold by FCA India Automobiles Private Limited to its Authorized Dealers, its contractual obligations are limited to the reimbursement of parts under warrant as per Owner's Manual/Warrant terms as provided to the complainant with the delivery of subject vehicle. As per said manual and terms, in case of any problem/trouble, customers can approach the respective dealers for any service or warranty requirement.
Further submits that the subject vehicle comes with a standard warrant of 03 years or 1,00,000 kms (which ever occur earlier). Complainant had purchased the vehicle Jeep Compass on 06.09.2017 and is under basic warranty till 05.09.2020. The vehicle was reported to the Authorized Dealer - OP2 on 11.11.2017 @ 4365kms for oil leakage wherein the vehicle was fully inspected and the sealing gasket and lubricant gear were changed under warrant. Thereafter, the vehicle reported for the scheduled first free services on 25.11.2017 @ 5098kms wherein the sealing gasket was again replaced under warranty and the vehicle was duly inspected by the technician of OP1 and kept ready for delivery but the complainant chose to take the delivery only on 05.12.2017. That the complainant reported for oil leakage concern and upon receiving the complaint of the complainant, OP2 on 20.01.2018 inspected the vehicle at the complainant's place and upon inspection found minor oil leakage. OP2 requested complainant to bring the car to the workshop or offered to pick the vehicle for complete inspection. Complainant agreed for the same but later denied. Without prejudice to the rights and contention of the OPs and as a goodwill gesture and being a customer centric company in order to settle the said issues out of court OP1 offered free replacement of the transmission assembly and also 05 years maintenance programme but complainant refused the same and demanded to buy back the car and refund the full amount of the vehicle. Further OP1 in its version submits that the vehicle comes with the stringent emission norms and advancement in Technology, the recent cars including complainant's car comes with various electrical modules and highly efficient canbus systems. However with this advancement, also comes a slight possibility of electrical malfunctioning which is customary for car of any make. Therefore, every vehicle comes with a warranty and also that the pre and post delivery of the vehicle to the Authorized Dealer, the vehicle passes through stringent quality test and there is no question of providing a defective vehicle to the complainant. Further submits that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question or deficiency in services. In case of manufacturing defect the vehicle would not even functioned for a day. Hence complaint filed by complainant deserves to be dismissed.
OP2 in its version categorically denying the allegations made by complainant submits that complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the car without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The vehicle is required to be serviced under the mandatory free services between selected intervals in order to keep the vehicle in good condition and avail warranty. The vehicle reporting for servicing for mandatory free services cannot be construed as a defect or complaint by the complainant. The OPs have been diligent and professional in their servicing and no deficiency in service can be attributed to them. Thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.
In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents and after closure of enquiry, heard learned counsels on record for the parties to the complaint. Now to examine whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs as alleged by the complainant and if so, for what reliefs complainant is entitled for?
Let us examine the documents produced by both the parties. Complainant had produced photocopy of computer generated Tax Invoice dated 31.08.2017 which discloses the fact that complainant had purchased the car for Rs.18,25,070/- from KHT Prime Unit 2 (Showroom), Old No.15A, New No.44, Industrial Sub Urb Service Road, RMC Yard Post, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022 who is none other OP2 in the present complaint. He also produced photocopy of Certificate cum Policy Schedule by Future Generali Total Insurance Solutions on 07.09.2017 which shows complainant had paid net premium of Rs.89,419/- to avail the insurance policy for the period from 07.09.2017 to 06.09.2018. Further complainant had produced photocopy of acknowledgment issued by Transport Department for payment of road tax for the period from 07.09.2017 to life time tax by paying amount of Rs.34,098/- and photocopy of RC Book which shows the registration date of model-Jeep Compass Limited 2.0D is on 07.09.2017 and the manufacture date of such model is on July, 2017. All these documents are not in dispute at all. Complainant had produced Tax Invoice issued by OP2 wherein could see complainant had visited OP2 on 25.11.2017 at 10:42am with a Mileage of 5098. OP2 had done First Free service and checked Front Bumper Re-fix, Head Light Focusing Check-up, Rear Side RH Boor Noise, Rear Tyre Noise, Speakers Rattling Noise, Wind Sheiled Inside Rear View Mirror Vibration to check for gear box oil leakage and had issued Warranty/Extended Warranty/FOC/MVP/AMC Report wherein could see the Check for Gear Box Oil Leakage and had replaced Seal Front Axle Half Shaft Right of Rs.495.60/- and Sealing Gasket of Rs.590/- under warranty. Complainant also produced Repair Order dated 20.01.2018 with a mileage of 6572 wherein could see repair details as thus - "Visited to customer place to check for oil leakage. We found oil leakage under Body, LH side. Need to inspect the vehicle. Customer writes a mail ......". Complainant had also placed email correspondence between complainant and OPs.
Now to examine the documents produced by OP2. OP2 had produced Repair Orders wherein could see complainant had visited on 03.10.2017 at about 02:27pm with a mileage of 1823 to check for Rear LH Suspension Noise, Both Glass Reading and Door Alignment and after checking OP2 had replaced Rear Shock Absorb L/H under Warranty. On 24.10.2017 at about 2:05pm complainant had again visited OP2 with a mileage of 3058 to check suspension, rear beading adjustment, rear fog lamp moisture checkup. After inspection OP2 re-fixed Rear Dickey Biding (RH), All Door Adjustment checked, Checked Torque, under Chassis Bolt and Nut found ok and made a note as 1) Suspension complaint not found, we had joint road test with customer found ok, 2) R/Door adjustment done, 3) R/Reid lap fog formation, raised complaint to FCA. Again on 11.11.2017 at about 10:56am complainant visited OP2 with a mileage of 4365 to check Gear Box Oil Leakage and for Rear Coil Spring. Again OP2 had replaced Rear L.H Coil Spring, F.R.H Gear Box Oil Seal, Rear R.H Coil Spring. Once again on 25.11.2017 at about 10:42am complainant had revisited OP2 with a mileage of 5098 to check Wind Shield inside Rear View Mirror Vibration, Speakers Rattling Noise, Rear Tyre Noise, Rear Side RH Door Noise, Head Light Focusing Check up, Front Bumper Refix, First Free Service and Check for Gear Box oil leakage. OP2 had done first free service and replaced Dry Shaft Air Seal. On 20.01.2018 at about 04:09pm complainant had visited OP2 to check jeep wage and for oil leakage and under workshop control sheet OP2 writes the job details as thus - "visited at customers place. Customer denied to handover the vehicle to workshop". It is therefore, on keen perusal of Repair Orders produced by OP2 could see that complainant had visited OP2 for nearly about 05 times complaining about the issues that occurred in the purchased car and every time OP2 had checked the subject car and had replaced some of the items under warranty.
This complaint is received on 19.04.2018 through advocate. OP2 had placed Tax Invoice dated 08.09.2018 wherein the mileage of the car shown as 10134 and complainant had left the car with OP2 for 02nd Free Service and to do Wheel Alignment. OP2 made recommendation as thus - "Gear Box Oil Top Up done with customer request 200ml, because vehicle is in legal case, customer not approval for repair job on Gear Oil Leakage". OP2 has also produced Warranty/Extended Warrant/FOC/MVP/AMC Report dated 08.09.2018 wherein could see ECU Flash 2.0L Diesel Engine Knocking in Cold Start, Grease Applied for Door Latches on All Four Doors, New Software Updated for U Connect 7.0 (new Software # 22.0.63.2), Reprogramming HVAC Module with New Software Updated and SKI Leather Seat Cleaning Done. He had also produced Temporary Estimate, Repair Order and Jeep Compass - 2.0L Diesel Service and Maintenance Schedule wherein could also see the completion of the said work done by OP2. On examining Final Inspection Check produced by OP2 could see customer/complainant demanded/requested to 2nd Free Service, Wheel Alignment and Gear Oil Top Up and OP2 had checked Exterior, Interior and Functional Check, Road Test, Campaign/RRT, Engine Compartment and Static and other check and had found all the parts are ok and only in Underbody Inspection - Engine and Transmission - for any damage/leakage found not ok and at the end of Final Inspection Check under Final Inspector Remarks and Confirmation wrote as thus - "Drive Shaft Oil Leakage, Gear Box Oil Top up 200ml, customer not given approval due to legal case". The Tax Invoice dated 15.12.2018 produced by OP2 could see that complainant had visited to Gear Box Oil Level Check up. The Mileage was about 14805. OP2 after checking gear box oil level made sublet repair and done 50ml top up.
Thus on going through the documents produced by complainant and OP2 could see that as on 15.12.2018 the subject car had run for about 14805 and complainant after filing complaint before the Commission on 19.04.2018 had left the subject car with OP2 on 08.09.2018 for 02nd Free Service and top up 200ml of gear box oil and again on 15.12.2018 done 50ml top up of gear box oil. Complainant had purchased "Jeep Compass" car from OP2 in the first week of September 2017 and on 03.10.2017 i.e., within the span of 01 month had noticed certain issues in the purchased car and left the car with OP2 to do repair. As stated earlier, complainant had left the car with OP2 for nearly about 05 times with the issues in the subject car before filing consumer complaint before the Commission. He even had communicated the said issued to OP1 as well as OP2 through Email. It is not that OP2 had not attended to the issues raised by complainant. But fact remained that even after attending to the issues and replacing and repairing certain parts of the subject car, had still persisted with the issue of Drive Shaft Oil Leakage which is proved by the Final Inspection Check done by the Technician of OP2. The contention of OP2 that the vehicle reporting for servicing for mandatory free services cannot be construed as a defect or complaint by the complainant cannot be accepted at all since the documents produced by OP2 clearly proves that even before the date of 01st Free Service and also after availing of 01st and 02nd Free Service complainant had visited service centre of OP2 several times. Therefore, on facts we hold that that there are certain issues or defects in certain parts of the subject car, however complainant had failed to establish that the subject car suffers from manufacturing defect since complainant had not produced any experts opinion or report as contended by OPs to prove that the subject car suffers from manufacturing defect. The Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble NCDRC in catena of decisions held that complainant must prove or establish manufacturing defects supported with any expert/approved laboratory opinion or report. Moreover, the subject car had given mileage for about 14805 as on 15.12.2018 and this make us to positively conclude that there is no manufacturing defect since any car with manufacturing defect couldn't run for about 14805. It is therefore, we are of the view that though complainant had failed to prove the manufacturing defect, facts remained that there still exist the issues with the subject car even after several repairs and replacement of the parts by the service centre for which the complainant has to be compensated.
The next point for consideration would be to what extent complainant be compensated?
Complainant had sought for replacement of the car or to refund the entire amount of Rs.22,85,000/- paid by him at the time of purchase. But as discussed above, complainant had failed to prove the manufacturing defect of the subject car. Hence the prayer of complainant to replace or refund of entire amount of the subject car cannot be accepted at all. Further complainant had also sought for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for travel and miscellaneous expenses and litigation expenses. In our view, this claim appears to be on higher side, since we have to take notice of the fact that compensation to be awarded based on the evidence proof and not based on the claim made by complainant. In such view of the matter Commission proceed to allow the complaint in part and pass the following;
OPs are directed to take back the car in question from complainant and repair the said car free from defects and make it roadworthy condition within a period of one month and to extend fresh warranty for one year from the date of delivery as per the original warranty provided by the Manufacturing Company.
Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation failing which OPs are liable to pay interest @ 08% p.a. from the filing of complaint till realization.
Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.
Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER