State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Autopace Networks Pvt. vs 1. Jaswinder Singh on 31 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 166 of 2013 Date of Institution : 17.04.2013 Date of Decision : 31.05.2013 M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160008, through its Regional Manager. Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 V e r s u s 1. Jaswinder Singh son of Sh. Gaja Singh, resident of H.No.1099, Sector 68, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar (Punjab.) ----Respondent no.1/complainant 2. Auto Pace Network Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its authorized person. ....Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Parmod Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Rakesh Kaundal, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant, alongwith complainant, in person. Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondent no.2, alongwith Sh. Vaibhav Mehan, Director of Autopace Pvt. Ltd., in person. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First Appeal No. : 104 of 2013 Date of Institution : 15.03.2013 Date of Decision : 31.05.2013 Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Plot No. 112-113, , Phase-I, Industrial Area Chandigarh, through its authorized person. Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 V e r s u s 1. Jaswinder Singh son of Sh. Gaja Singh, resident of H.No.1099, Sector 68, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar (Punjab.) ----Respondent no.1/complainant 2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, North II, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. ....Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the apellant, alongwith Sh. Vaibhav Mehan, Director of Autopace Pvt. Ltd., (appellant/Opposite Party No.2) in person. Sh. Rakesh Kaundal, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant, alongwith complainant, in person. Sh. Parmod Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1 BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos.166 of 2013, titled as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Jaswinder Singh & anr. and 104 of 2013, titled as Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaswinder Singh and anr., arising out of the order dated 31.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only), vide which, it accepted Complaint Case No.606 of 2011- Jaswinder Singh Vs. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another and directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, as under:-
In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is Allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-
[a] To take back the vehicle in question from the Complainant and pay the invoice price of the vehicle less 20% depreciation applicable as per rules [b] To pay Rs.7335 towards lump sum road tax and Rs.6961/- towards insurance premium, paid by the Complainant;
[c] To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[d] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;
The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a], [b] & [c] of para 12 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
2. The fact, in brief, are that being enticed by the advertisements, about the features and performance of the four wheeler of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant on 16.06.2011 (infact 18.06.2010), purchased Maruti A-Star VXI, from Opposite Party No.2 (dealer of Opposite Party No.1), in the sum of Rs.3,61,736/-, inclusive of VAT. A sum of Rs.7,535/-, towards lifetime road tax of the vehicle and Rs.11,000/-, (infact 6,961/-) for getting the same (vehicle) insured, were also paid, by the complainant. The vehicle was duly registered, in the name of the complainant. According to the complainant, right from the very beginning, he had been facing problem of excessive engine vibration, in respect of the said vehicle. The complainant got serviced his car four times, and each time, he had pointed out this problem to the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2, who, on each occasion, assured him that the problem of excessive vibrations, in the engine of said vehicle, would get rectified, automatically, after sometime. It was stated that, on 23.7.2011, during the 4th service, the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2, told the complainant that the excessive vibrations, in the engine of the vehicle, in question, may be due to the problem, in mounting arrangement of the same (engine), which was a common problem, in Maruti Suzuki A-Star cars. The complainant made a complaint to Opposite Party No.1, to look into the matter, vide his e-mail dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure C-7), which was duly acknowledged by it, whereupon, an official of Opposite Party No.2, told him (complainant) to bring the car, to the workshop, on 30.07.2011. The car was taken to the workshop on 30.07.2011. The Engineer of Opposite Party No.2, checked the car and told that they had already discussed the matter with R&D Wing, and it had found that there was a problem of excessive engine vibrations, in some A-Star cars, due to inappropriate engine mounting. The Customer Care Manager of Opposite Party No.2, also intimated the complainant, vide e-mail dated 01.08.2011(Annexure C-8), that the engine mounting of the vehicle, had to be changed to stop the excessive vibrations in the same (engine). The complainant was also told that the said part was not available, in the store, and it had been ordered, which shall be received on 03.08.2011.
3. It was further stated that the officials of Opposite Party No.2 asked the complainant to bring his car to the workshop, on 06.08.2011. He took the car to the workshop, on 06.08.2011, when the engine mounting of the same was replaced, vide job card, Annexure C-9, with an assurance that the problem of excessive vibrations, in the same (engine) had been sorted out. It was further stated that, after covering a distance of some kilometers, on that day, the complainant felt the same problem, as before. It was further stated that, the complainant again requested the Opposite Parties, on 18.08.2011, through e-mail to sort out the matter, followed by a reminder dated 23.08.2011, whereupon, the Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1, told him, to bring his car, to his office on 27.08.2011. The said Manager, himself inspected the vehicle, thoroughly, and told the complainant, that there was a problem, in the engine, due to which excessive vibrations were occurring. He directed the Works Manager of Opposite Party No.2, on telephone, to check the engine, especially, its IC valve. Thereafter, the Work Manager of Opposite Party No.2, asked the complainant, to bring the vehicle, to the workshop, on 28.08.2011. The complainant took the car to the workshop on 28.08.2011 and the needful was done, as per the directions given by the Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1. On handing over the car to the complainant, the said Manager, told him, that they had to clean/adjust IC valve of the car, whereafter, vibration problem would not occur, in its engine, in future.
4. It was further stated that, after 3-4 days, again the problem of excessive engine vibrations started. Feeling harassed, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 18.09.2011 (Annexure C-13) to Opposite Party No.1, with a request to take back the defective car, and refund the price thereof. It was further stated that the Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1, requested the complainant, through e-mail dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure C-14), to given an opportunity to them to resolve the problem. It was further stated that the complainant had given full chance to the Opposite Parties.
However, when nobody turned up to pick up the car, the complainant personally dropped the same, at the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, on 30.09.2011. It was further stated that the mechanics/engineers of Opposite Party No.2, tried to solve the problem, aforesaid, by cleaning the IC valve, of the said vehicle, in the presence of the Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1, but all in vain. It was further stated that the mechanics/engineers replaced the IC valve of the car, and got checked the same from the Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1.
5. It was further stated that, on getting back the vehicle, on 03.10.2011, the complainant found that the same problem of excessive vibrations in the engine, were existing, as prior to the replacement of IC valve. Eventually, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, to take back the vehicle, and refund the price thereof, alongwith interest, within 15 days. It was further stated that, thereafter, the Opposite Parties, requested the complainant to drop the car, at the workshop, to examine the defect, and remove the same. The complainant, accordingly, again dropped his car, at the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, on 09.11.2010 (infact 09.11.2011) vide job card Annexure C-15. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, attended the vehicle, for more than 10 days, and on receipt of satisfaction report, from Opposite Party No.1, on 19.11.2011, the complainant picked up his vehicle, from the workshop, but observed that the same problem existed, as was before dropping the car at the workshop, aforesaid.
6. It was further stated that the engine of the car was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were asked to refund the price of the car, alongwith the amounts paid towards life time road tax and for insurance, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.3,61,736/-, i.e. the price of the vehicle, alongwith Rs.7,535/-, paid by him, towards life time road tax and Rs.11,000/- (infact Rs.6,961/-), towards its insurance, alongwith interest @16% P.A.; compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.
7. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was stated that the allegations, contained in the complaint, did not constitute any consumer dispute, and, thus, the District Forum had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same. It was further stated that the relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 (dealer) was on principal-to-principal basis, as per the Dealership Agreement. It was admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, from Opposite Party No.2, and paid the consideration amount. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was not privy to the said transaction. It was denied that there was alleged problem of excessive vibrations, in the engine of the vehicle, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicles manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, after being certified FCOK (Final check OK) are dispatched to the dealer destination. It was further stated that the dealers, at the time of sale of vehicles, to their customers, carryout final PDI (Pre-Delivery Inspection) of all vehicles, ensuring that the same were safe, and in perfect OK roadworthy condition, leaving no room for defects, in the same (vehicle). It was further stated that the vehicle, in question, was delivered after Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) in good condition, to the complainant, on 19.06.2010 (infact 18.06.2010). It was further stated that the complainant brought the vehicle, to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, for obtaining 1st, 2nd and 3rd free inspection services on 13.07.2010 at 1229 Kms, on 28.9.2010 at 5027 Kms, and on 05.02.2011 at 11,238 Kms respectively. Fourth paid service was got done, on 23.07.2011 at 20976 Kms. It was further stated that, at the time of obtaining the said inspection services, no abnormality was observed by the Service Engineer of the workshop. It was further stated that minor adjustments needed during extensive use of the vehicle were carried out, alongwith demanded repairs. It was further stated that normal services, as per routine maintenance schedule, were carried out, upto the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle was road tested, in the presence of the complainant, every time, after service, and the complainant after service, took the delivery of the vehicle, to his entire satisfaction, without any protest and demur. It was denied that the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2, made representation to the complainant, that there was alleged problem, in the vehicle. It was further stated that, in order to satisfy the apprehension of the complainant, about the alleged vibrations in the engine of the vehicle, the complainant was requested to bring the same (vehicle), for necessary inspection. Accordingly, the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert Service Engineer of the workshop, and no abnormality was observed. It was further stated that the performance of the vehicle was found, as per the prescribed standards. However, upon stiff demand of the complainant, he was informed to get the engine mounting replaced, under warranty, on free-of-cost (FOC) basis. It was further stated that since, the said part was not in stock, hence the complainant was requested to bring the vehicle, after a few days. It was further stated that the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, on 06.08.2011, when it had covered 21515 Kms, and the engine mounting was replaced, under warranty on FOC basis, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant after service, took the delivery of vehicle, to his entire satisfaction, and without any protest. It was further stated that whatever repairs were required in the vehicle, were carried out, by the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, as per the warranty terms and conditions. It was further stated that the vehicle had been plied for more than 26793 Kms, as on 09.11.2011, and, if there had been any problem or abnormality, in the same, it would not have plied for more than 26793 Kms, within 16 months of its purchase. It was further stated that the IC valve of the vehicle, was replaced under warranty, alongwith carrying out throttle body cleaning of the same (vehicle). It was denied that the engine of vehicle, suffered from any manufacturing defect. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was mere an abuse of the process of law, and was not maintainable. It was stated that no expert report/opinion, from a recognized laboratory was produced by the complainant, to the effect, that the engine of the vehicle, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the allegations contained, in the complaint did not constitute a consumer dispute, and, as such, the Consumer Complaint, was not maintainable. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were having principal-to-principal relationship. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 could not be held responsible for any acts of omission and commission, of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was selling the vehicles, in the condition, in which the same were received from Opposite Party No.1. It was admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle, in question, paid the agreed consideration amount, and had received the same. It was further stated that the vehicle, was brought by the complainant, for free services, and whatever defects were pointed out by him, were duly rectified. It was denied that the engine of the vehicle was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects i.e. the extra vibration problems, design mistake etc. It was further stated that the vehicle was inspected by the Engineers of Opposite Party 2, under the instructions of the Engineer of Opposite Party No.1, and it was recommended that mounting of the engine be replaced. It was further stated that when the said part was received, it was replaced on 06.08.2011, free-of-cost. It was further stated that, thereafter, the vehicle was taken by the complainant, after due satisfaction. It was further stated that 09.11.2011, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, after coverage of distance of 26793 Kms, with the complaint of engine vibrations. It was further stated that after thorough inspection of the vehicle, the same was delivered to the complainant, in satisfactory condition, on 11.11.2011. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
9. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
10. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
11. Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal Nos.166 of 2013, titled as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Jaswinder Singh & anr. and 104 of 2013, titled as Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaswinder Singh and anr., were filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, respectively, for setting aside the order impugned rendered by the District Forum.
12. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the cases, carefully.
13. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in both the appeals, submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.2, on 18.06.2010, for a sum of Rs.3,61,736/-, inclusive of VAT. It was further submitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, for three free services, when no defect was pointed that there were excessive vibrations, in the engine of the same. It was further submitted that the engine mounting was replaced, as per the instructions of the engineer of Opposite Party No.1, by the mechanics/engineers of Opposite Party No.2, and the vehicle was taken by the complainant, after due satisfaction. It was further submitted that had there been excessive vibrations, in the engine, the vehicle would not have plied for a distance of 26793 Kms, upto 09.11.2011. It was further submitted that, at the time of filing the complaint, no expert report/opinion was submitted by the complainant, to the effect, that there were excessive vibrations, in the engine. It was further submitted that, even there were no prescribed parameters, with regard to the vibrations, in the engine. It was further submitted that, no doubt, during the pendency of the complaint, the vehicle was sent to the Director-Principal, Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, for inspection. It was further submitted that the experts of Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, who inspected the vehicle, did not use any scientific method, to find out, as to what were the reasons for alleged excessive vibrations in the engine. It was further submitted that the report dated 22.09.2012, of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, thus, could not be said to an expert report and no reliance could be placed thereon. It was further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. It was further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong, in accepting the complaint and granting relief of refund of price of the vehicle. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
14. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, in both the appeals, submitted that right from the very beginning, the vehicle was purchased, there was a problem of excessive vibrations, in the engine of the same, which was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, from time to time, on every occasion, when the free services were availed of. It was further submitted that the report of experts of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, who inspected the vehicle, in the presence of the representatives of the Opposite Parties, and the complainant was correct. It was further submitted that since there was inherent manufacturing defect, in the engine of the vehicle, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the refund of price of the same (vehicle), should be ordered.
15. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the engine of the vehicle, purchased by the complainant, from the Opposite Party No.2 (dealer of Opposite Party No.1), was giving excessive vibrations, and, as such, suffered from manufacturing defect. The vehicle, in question, was purchased on 18.06.2010, as is evident, from invoice Annexure C-1. It is evident, from Annexure C-6 that Pre Delivery Inspection of the vehicle was done on 18.06.2010, at the time of purchase of the same, by Opposite Party No.2. The first free service was availed of by the complainant, on 13.07.2010. During this free service, general check up of the vehicle, was conducted and engine oil treatment was given. Antirust coating was also done, on that day. The second free service, as is evident, from Annexure C-6, was availed of, by the complainant, on 28.09.2010. It is evident, from Annexure C-6 that, at that time, besides service of the engine, wheel alignment was done. Balancing of four wheels and tyre rotation, were also done. The third free service was done on 05.02.2011, as is evident, from Annexure C-6/R1/4. It is evident, from Annexure R1/4, job card dated 05.02.2011, generated at the time of third free service that the following repairs were demanded:-
OIL AND OIL FILTER CHANGE WHEEL ALIGNMENT WHEEL BALANCING-4 WHEEL TYRE ROTATION ENGINE VIBRATION
16. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, to the complainant, as per the job card Annexure R1/4, no satisfaction note was recorded by him. R1/5 is another job card dated 23.07.2011. In this job card, the problem with regard to gear pin abnormal noise was found mentioned. No satisfaction note was recorded on this job card too, by the complainant. Annexure R1/6 is another job card dated 06.08.2011, under the demanded repairs, in this job card, it was recorded Running repair. Engine Mounting Check. Even check lists attached with the job cards, to the effect, that the vehicle had been completely and thoroughly checked and no abnormality remained to be addressed, did not find any satisfaction note signed by the complainant. On 06.08.2011, the engine mounting was replaced. Even, it is evident, from R1/7 another job card dated 28.08.2011, that engine vibration at idle speed was reported. The check list attached therewith did not find satisfaction note of the complainant. Annexure R1/9, is the job card dated 30.09.2011, wherein, the demanded repairs were mentioned as running repairs and engine vibration. There were remarks of the Engineer of the Opposite Parties, that the vehicle was checked and the work was done, but no satisfaction note was recorded by the complainant, on the check list, attached therewith. Had the grievance of the complainant been redressed, with regard to the rectification of excessive vibrations, in the engine, the satisfaction note would have been certainly recorded by him. From the aforesaid documents, which related to the Opposite Parties, it was, thus, proved that there were excessive vibrations, in the engine, and the same were reported to the Opposite Parties, from time to time by the complainant, as is evident, from the job cards, referred to above, and the emails sent by him.
17. No doubt, at the time of filing the complaint, no expert opinion was produced, by the complainant. However, during the pendency of the complaint, Miscellaneous Application no.61 of 2012, was filed by the complainant, for seeking report of some independent agency or an expert. The District Forum requested the Director-Principal, Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, to constitute a Committee of experts, to inspect the car and submit a report, as to whether, there was any manufacturing defect, in the engine of the car or not. Accordingly, the car was sent to the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, for the aforesaid purpose. It is evident, that the Director-Principal, Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, constituted a Committee of experts, comprising Dr. V.P. Singh, Associate Professor, Dr. Sushant Samir, Assistant Professor and Sh. Gopal Dass, W.I., all from Mechanical Engineering Department. The said Committee of experts, duly inspected the vehicle, in question, and gave the report, which is at page 241 of the District Forum file, the operative part whereof, is reproduced hereunder:-
Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Owner, Sh.Ravinder Sharma, Advocate from complainant side and Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Territory Service Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Sh. Baljinder Singh, CGM, Sh. Arvind Kumar, AWM and Sh. Vaibhav Mehan, Director, Auto Pace Network Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh from the opposite side were present during inspection.
The vehicle bearing registration no. PB 65 L 2200, Chasis no.MA3EPDEIS00324615 and engine no.K10B1224168 was presented for inspection. The reading of the odometer at the time of inspection was at 29476.
The committee after, perusal of records, inspection and test drive is of the opinion that the vehicle in question has excessive engine vibrations during idling which is not desirable. Since the opposite parties tried to solve the problem by replacing engine mounting and intake air valves the problem could not be rectified. Therefore the problem of excessive vibrations in engine of the vehicle seems to be because of some manufacturing defect
18. The perusal of the afore-extracted operative part of the report of the Expert Committee clearly reveals that the vehicle, in question, had excessive engine vibrations, during idling, which were not desirable. It is further evident, from the said report that since the Opposite Parties tried to solve the problem, by replacing the engine mounting and intake air valve, but the same could not be rectified. It is further evident, from the afore-extracted report, that the problem of excessive vibrations, in the engine of vehicle, seems to be because of some manufacturing defect. The members of the Expert Committee, being well qualified, in the relevant field, were competent to examine the vehicle, and find out the defects therein. Not only this, the inspection was made by the expert members of the Committee, in the presence of Sh.Jaswinder Singh, complainant, Sh.Ravinder Sharma, his Advocate, Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Territory Service Manager, of Opposite Party No.1, Sh. Baljinder Singh, CGM, Sh. Arvind Kumar, AWM and Sh. Vaibhav Mehan, Director, of Opposite Party No.2. In case, the Opposite Parties had any objection, to the report of the Expert Committee, they could raise the same, at that time. Since, the Expert Committee gave the report, after inspection, that excessive vibrations in the engine, even during idling, constituted the manufacturing defect, in our considered opinion, there is no reason, to disbelieve the same. In case, the Opposite Parties, had any doubt, with regard to the report of the members of the Expert Committee, who were well qualified, in the relevant field, they could submit the report of their own independent expert, to rebut the same. However, the Opposite Parties did not submit the report of their own expert, to rebut the report of the Committee of Experts, at page 241 of the District Forum file. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in placing reliance on the report of the Committee of Experts, referred to above, placed at page no.241of the District Forum file. The District Forum was also right, in holding that there was manufacturing defect, in the engine of the vehicle.
19. No doubt, objections to the report were filed by Opposite Party No.1, which were also adopted by Opposite Party No.2, to the effect, that the inspection report of the expert members of the Committee of Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, was not sustainable, in the eye of law, as the same was defective. It was stated, in the objections, that the report of the Committee could not be treated to be an expert opinion. It was further stated in the written objections that the members of the Expert Committee, instead of giving their observations, gave the conclusions and judgments, on the car. It was further stated in the objections that the members of the Expert Committee were not equipped with the tools, to find out, as to whether, there was manufacturing defect, in the engine of the car, or not. Mere filing of objections, without being supported by any expert evidence/opinion, was of no consequence. As stated above, in case, the Opposite Parties did not agree with the report of the Expert Committee, referred to above, then their own independent Engineer, could submit his independent opinion, to rebut the same but it was not done. Opposite Party No.1, submitted the affidavit of Prince Dua, its Territory Service Manager, having technical diploma in Automobile Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Ambala, by way of evidence. Mr. Prince Dua, was not present at the time of inspection of the vehicle, in question, by the members of the Expert Committee, aforesaid. Even otherwise, he is only holding Diploma in Automobile Engineering, whereas, one of the members of the Expert Committee was Workshop Instructor, and two others were Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. Two members of the Committee were certainly having much higher qualifications, in the relevant field, than Mr. Prince Dua. In the job cards, referred to above, the complaint, with regard to excessive vibrations in the engine, were made and recorded. Those could not be rectified by the Engineers/Mechanics of the Opposite Parties. On one occasion, the engine mounting and IC valve of the car were also replaced, but the problem remained as it is. Under these circumstances, the affidavit of Prince Dua, only a Diploma holder, in Automobile Engineering, which is against the documentary evidence, on record, could not supersede the report of the Committee, aforesaid. Opposite Party No.2, in support of it case submitted the affidavit of Mr.Nitin Mehan, its Director. Mr.Nitin Mehan is not a qualified engineer, and, as such, his evidence, as to whether, the engine of the vehicle was suffering from excessive vibrations, or not, is of no consequences. Under these circumstances, the objections submitted by the Opposite Parties, without being substantiated through any cogent and convincing expert evidence, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stand rejected.
20. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in both the appeals, that according to Clause 4 (m), warranty was not to apply to insignificant defects, which did not affect the function of the vehicle, including without limitation, sound, vibration and fluid seep. The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, could not take benefit of this Clause. The defect of excessive vibrations, in the engine of the vehicle, was not at all insignificant. The defect of excessive vibrations in the engine cropped up, during the warranty period and continued till date. Excessive vibrations in the engine of vehicle, as per the report of the Expert Committee, referred to above, even during the idling of the vehicle, certainly constituted a manufacturing defect. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in both the appeals, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
21. The second question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the order of the District Forum, with regard to the refund of price of the vehicle, after deduction of 20% depreciation thereof, is correct or not. In the instant case, the report of the Committee of Experts was not that the entire vehicle, in question, was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. On the other hand, the report of the Committee of Experts, the operative part whereof has been extracted above, was to the effect, that there were excessive vibrations, in the engine of the vehicle, even during idling. It means that it was the engine of the vehicle, which was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, and not the entire vehicle. In our considered opinion, the District Forum was required to order the replacement of engine, with a brand new one, so as to make the vehicle defect free, instead of ordering the refund of the price thereof (vehicle). The order of the District Forum, thus, requires modification, as indicated above.
22. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, on both the appeals.
23. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, by selling the car, to the complainant, with defective engine.
24. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is modified, as under:-
i) Respondent no.1/complainant (in both the appeals), is directed to take the vehicle, in question to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, dealer of Opposite Party No.1, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
ii) The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in both the appeals, are jointly and severally directed to replace the engine of the vehicle, with a brand new, defect free one, under the supervision of panel of two experts, within a period of 20 days, from the date of receipt of the vehicle, from respondent no.1/ complainant, in the premises of Opposite Party No.2, without charging any amount from him (complainant), and, thereafter, necessary documents be also issued by them, with regard to the engine number etc. etc.
iii) After the replacement of engine of the car with a brand new, defect free one, the panel of experts aforesaid, shall submit their affidavits, to this Commission, within 20 days, that they had done the needful, as per Clause (ii) above.
iv) The direction of the District Forum, holding Opposite Parties No.1 and 2/appellants (in both the appeals), jointly and severally, liable to pay Rs.25,000/-, on account of deficiency, in rendering service, and causing mental agony and physical harassment, shall remain intact.
v) The direction of the District Forum holding Opposite Parties No.1 and 2/appellants (in both the appeals), jointly and severally liable to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, shall also remain intact.
vi) The amount of Rs.25,000/- mentioned in Clause (iv) above, shall be paid by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @9% P.A., from the date of default, till realization.
vii) The remaining directions given by the District Forum, subject to the modifications aforesaid, are set aside.
25. Certified copy of the judgment be placed in First Appeal No. 104 of 2013, titled as Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaswinder Singh and anr.
26. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
27. The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
31.05.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. :
104of 2013 Date of Institution :
15.03.2013 Date of Decision :
31.05.2013 Autopace Networks Pvt.
Ltd., Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Plot No. 112-113, , Phase-I, Industrial Area Chandigarh, through its authorized person.
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 V e r s u s
1. Jaswinder Singh son of Sh. Gaja Singh, resident of H.No.1099, Sector 68, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar (Punjab.)
----Respondent no.1/complainant
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, North II, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
....Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the apellant, alongwith Sh. Vaibhav Mehan, Director of Autopace Pvt. Ltd., (appellant/Opposite Party No.2) in person.
Sh. Rakesh Kaundal, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant, alongwith complainant, in person.
Sh. Parmod Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1 BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded, in connected First Appeal Nos.166 of 2013, titled as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Jaswinder Singh & anr. this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the modification, as per the directions given in the main order of First Appeal No.166 of 2013. A certified copy of that order be placed on this file.
2. Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order, be sent to the parties, free-of-charge.
3. The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg.