State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nand Kishor Agrawal vs Bmw India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. on 21 February, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2016/29
Instituted on : 04.07.2016
Nand Kishor Agrawal,
S/o Late Piramal Agrawal,
C/o : Pooja Traders,
Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.)
Postal Address : SF-8, Shyam Plaza,
Opp. Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. BMW India Pvt. Ltd.,
Building No.8, Tower B,
7th Floor, DLF Cyber City,
Phase 2, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122 002
2. Munich Motor,
BMW Dealer,
Mandhan Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Ring Road No.1, Village Sarona,
Raipur (C.G.) - 492 006 ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the complainant.
Shri A.R. Quraishi, for the O.P. No.1.
Shri Sanjay Nayak, for the O.P. No.2.
ORDER
Dated : 21 /02/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(a) The OPs may be directed to replace the vehicle of the complainant with new one along with new warranty.
// 2 //
(b) To direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental harassment and compensation loss for not using the vehicle.
(c) The cost of the suit.
(d) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper, may also be awarded.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the O.P. No.1 is the manufacturer and having office in India and O.P. No.2 is the dealer and having the showroom of O.P. No.1 at Raipur. The complainant has purchased one BMW (Model) No. BMW X1 SDRIVE 20D IND CKD RL, Exterior Color : Graphite Blue Metallic, Upholstery : Leather Nevada Beige, Transmission : Automatic Transmission, Chassis No. WBAVN37070VP46007 and Engine No. 74997650 on 19.08.2011 and registration No. of the vehicle was C.G.04- HE-5500. The total price of the vehicle was Rs.30,95,000/- and vehicle was delivered to the complainant. The OPs have given the warranty period for 3 years or 1,00,000 k.m. and insurance and R.C. Book charges were also taken by the OPs. The complainant has to pay the monthly instalment to the financer for the vehicle which he has purchased from OPs and the complainant has to pay also the interest to the financer. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his self // 3 // use and for his family use and has purchased the said vehicle for his comfort by paying such huge amount to the opposite party company on account of safety. After purchasing the vehicle there was problem in vehicle and there was problem in the engine for which the vehicle was kept in show room for many days. The complainant's vehicle was having the engine problem from the starting and the vehicle was brought to O.P.'s show room and the OPs have done the repairing of the vehicle many times regarding the problem it is mentioned in job card which OPs have issued. During the period of warranty, the vehicle was continuously suffering from the problems and on several occasions vehicle was brought to O.P.'s service centre where the repairing was done. It was clear proof that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect because of which several times the vehicle was brought to O.P. showroom for repairing and every time OPs have assured that there will be no problem in the vehicle. The vehicle was continuously facing the problem and the vehicle was not in a good running condition. Complainant has requested to OPs to change the vehicle but OPs have given him the assurance that the OPs will extent the warranty period because in entire warranty period the vehicle was more than half time in OPs service centre. The complainant's vehicle is lying at OPs service center since last month having the same problem and the vehicle is not in a condition of running. Complainant has requested to OPs to replace the vehicle with new one. The // 4 // complainant has not been able to use the vehicle and every time he is a fear that if he will take the vehicle for long drive then any problem may create during the journey, therefore, he is not able to use the vehicle. Looking to the problem which has not been solved by the dealer / service centre it is clear that the vehicle is having the manufacturing defect and even after efforts the vehicle does not come in the condition that it may be driven smoothly with confidence. The Service Engineer of the service center have clearly informed that they have not been able to solve the problem that why one and other problem is coming in the vehicle every time. This clearly shows that OPs have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant for which he has suffered mentally and he has to pay the huge amount of interest along with intstallment to the bank and he is not able to use the vehicle regularly. So there is double loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the OPs. Due to negligent act of the company and the dealer, the complainant has suffered huge losses and he has suffered the mental harassment because of the defective vehicle for which OPs are responsible. Because of negligent act of the OPs and defective vehicle complainant is suffering the huge loss and he is not able to use the vehicle for which the OPs are responsible for the instalment of the vehicle for which complainant is not able to use the vehicle. The vehicle is standing in the OPs show room for many days and upto this date the vehicle is not // 5 // in a fit condition, which clearly shows that manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is in a warranty condition because the vehicle for more than half time was in the service center of the OPs and because of this the warranty continuous and the OPs are liable for the loss suffered by the complainant. The OPs have not solved the problem of the complainant and has not replaced the vehicle with new one, therefore, the complainant has to file this complaint. The complainant has sent the notice through his advocate on 22.04.2016 and notice was received by the OPs and the OPs have sent the reply through mail and has informed that the parts of the car has been received and they are ready to start the working on the car. The complainant was surprised after the receiving of this letter because the vehicle is having the problem of manufacturing defect and the act of the OPs is against the norms and it is clearly unfair trade practice on behalf of OPs. The OPs have committed deficiency in service by not replacing the vehicle of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 filed its written statement and averred that the present complaint filed by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law as it fails to even prima facie disclose any cause of action qua the O.P. No.1. The complainant is guilty of suppression very suggestio falsi and has approached this Commission with unclean hands and hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with // 6 // costs. On a mere perusal of the complaint it is evidently clear that it lacks cause of action qua the O.P. No.1. The complainant has failed to draw facts to implicate the O.P. No.1 in the matter. It transpires from the complaint that the O.P. No.1 has been made party only as an arm- twisting measure and to extort money by harassing it through the present complaint. On a bare perusal of the present complaint, it is clearly evident that the complainant has failed to make out any case, whatsoever, against the O.P.No.1 which can come within the purview of the Act. Admittedly the O.P. No.1 is an independent entity engaged in the business of manufacturing BMW cars word wide (including India). There is no relationship, whatsoever, between O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 other than the latter being an authorized dealer of the former in terms of the Dealership Agreement inter-se between them. The relationship between O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 is not that of a principal and agent relationship and the same is on a principal to principal basis. The O.P. No.1 only sells its vehicles to O.P. No.2, who then further sells such vehicles to their customers. Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 has no direct contact or control or relationship with the end customer (in this case, the present complainant). The entire complaint, in so far as it avers against the O.P. No.1 is in any event vague, baseless and does not mention, even remotely, and deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. No.1. In view thereof, the instant complaint in its present form is not sustainable and liable to be // 7 // dismissed qua the O.P. No.1 due to non-disclosure of any cause of action against the O.P. No.1. The car purchased by the complainant had no defective engine from the beginning. There is no manufacturing defect in the car as is being alleged by the complainant. Even though there is no privity of contract between the O.P. No.1 and the complainant out of goodwill gesture 70% discount on the cost of servicing and repair. By no stretch of imagination there could be any deficiency of service against O.P. No.1. As informed by O.P. No.2 all the repairs stand completed and the same was intimated by the O.P. No.1 in its reply dated 22nd April, 2016 to the Legal Notice. Thus, the averment in the para under reply with respect to condition of the car is incorrect and misleading. It is denied that the car was not in a road- worthy condition and that the failure of service centre / dealer in fixing the problems in the car tantamount to inherent product defect. It is vehemently denied that the car suffers from any manufacturing defect or that it was due to the alleged inherent defects that the O.P. No.2 could not fix it. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1.. The car is with the complainant and the complainant has made statement with an intent to mislead this Commission. The O.P. No.1 has been informed that the complainant has taken the delivery of the car, and the same is with the complainant in series standard. The said fact has been suppressed by the complainant from this Commission. The complainant is not entitled // 8 // to replacement of the vehicle. It has been informed by the O.P. No.2 that the car has been handed over to the complainant is series standard. Thus, the present complaint has become infructuous as the cause of action does not survive. The car has been restored to series standard by the O.P. No.2 and the complainant has taken delivery of the same. As a goodwill gesture the O.P. No.1 agreed to bear 70% of the total cost incurred in engine repairs even post warranty period. It is denied that the complaint was filed within the time limitation as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that there existed no cause of action in the past 2 years that can give rise to the instant compliant. The complaint is based on false averments and manufactured causes to harass the O.P. No.2 while there lies no cause of action qua O.P. No.2 in any manner. The instant complaint is devoid of merits. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
4. In the instant case, the O.P. No.2 has not filed their written statement within prescribed period, hence this Commission closed the right of the O.P. No.2 to file written statement vide order dated 16.01.2016. On the basis of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CLT 476, Hon'ble National Commission in Green View Apartment Welfare Society Vs. M/s GAV Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (3) CLT 18 and Vibgyor Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. // 9 // Millenium Towers Harmony CHS Limited, III (2016) CPJ 228 (NC), the written statement filed by O.P. No.2 after lapse of prescribed period, cannot be taken on record.
5. The complainant has filed documents. A-1 is tax invoice of Munich Motors dated 19.08.2011, A-2 is Sale Certificate dated 19.08.2011, A-3 is Form 22 of BMW India, A-4 is Certificate of Registration dated 08.02.2012, A-5 is Letter of SBI General Insurance to the complainant dated 08.03.2016, A-6 is copy of insurance policy dated 05.03.2016, A-7 is letter of BMW Financial Services to the complainant dated 24.02.2014, A-8 is letter of BMW Financial Services regarding No Objection Certificate dated 24.02.2014, A-9 is Job Cards of Munich Motors of various dated, A-10 is notice of the complainant's advocate dated 22.04.2016, A-11 is postal receipt, A-12 is acknowledgement.
6. The O.P. No.1 has filed documents. Ex. OP1/1 is Letter of Authorisation, Ex. OP1/2 is letter letter dated 23.05.2016 sent by the O.P. No.1 to Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhawnani,
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased one BMW (Model) No. BMW X1 SDRIVE 20D IND CKD RL, Exterior Color :
Graphite Blue Metallic, Upholstery : Leather Nevada Beige, Transmission : Automatic Transmission, Chassis No. // 10 // WBAVN37070VP46007 and Engine No. 74997650 on 19.08.2011 and registration No. of the vehicle was C.G.04-HE-5500. The total price of the vehicle was Rs.30,95,000/- and vehicle was delivered to the complainant. The OPs have given the warranty period for 3 years or 1,00,000 k.m. and insurance and R.C. Book charges were also taken by the OPs. The complainant has to pay the monthly instalment to the financer for the vehicle which he has purchased from OPs and the complainant has to pay also the interest to the financer. After purchasing the vehicle there was problem in vehicle and there was problem in the engine for which the vehicle was kept in show room for many days. The complainant's vehicle was having the engine problem from the starting and the vehicle was brought to O.P.'s show room and the OPs have done the repairing of the vehicle many times regarding the problem it is mentioned in job card which OPs have issued. During the period of warranty, the vehicle was continuously suffering from the problems and on several occasions vehicle was brought to O.P.'s service centre where the repairing was done. It was clear proof that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect because of which several times the vehicle was brought to O.P. showroom for repairing and every time OPs have assured that there will be no problem in the vehicle. Complainant has requested to OPs to change the vehicle but OPs have given him the assurance that the OPs will extent the warranty period because in entire warranty period the // 11 // vehicle was more than half time in OPs service centre. The complainant's vehicle is lying at OPs service center since last month having the same problem and the vehicle is not in a condition of running. Complainant has requested to OPs to replace the vehicle with new one. The Service Engineer of the service center have clearly informed that they have not been able to solve the problem that why one and other problem is coming in the vehicle every time. This clearly shows that OPs have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant for which he has suffered mentally and he has to pay the huge amount of interest along with intstallment to the bank and he is not able to use the vehicle regularly. So there is double loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the OPs. Because of negligent act of the OPs and defective vehicle complainant is suffering the huge loss and he is not able to use the vehicle for which the OPs are responsible for the instalment of the vehicle for which complainant is not able to use the vehicle. The vehicle is in a warranty condition because the vehicle for more than half time was in the service center of the OPs and because of this the warranty continuous and the OPs are liable for the loss suffered by the complainant. The OPs have not solved the problem of the complainant and has not replaced the vehicle with new one, therefore, the complainant has to file this complaint. The complainant has sent the notice through his advocate on 22.04.2016 and notice was // 12 // received by the OPs and the OPs have sent the reply through mail and has informed that the parts of the car has been received and they are ready to start the working on the car. The OPs have committed deficiency in service by not replacing the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get compensation as mentioned in the complaint.
8. Shri A.R. Quraishi, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 has argued that the present complaint filed by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law as it fails to even prima facie disclose any cause of action qua the O.P. No.1. The complainant is guilty of suppression very suggestio falsi and has approached this Commission with unclean hands and hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On a mere perusal of the complaint it is evidently clear that it lacks cause of action qua the O.P. No.1. The complainant has failed to draw facts to implicate the O.P. No.1 in the matter. It transpires from the complaint that the O.P. No.1 has been made party only as an arm-twisting measure and to extort money by harassing it through the present complaint. On a bare perusal of the present complaint, it is clearly evident that the complainant has failed to make out any case, whatsoever, against the O.P.No.1 which can came within the purview of the Act. Admittedly the O.P. No.1 is an independent entity engaged in the business of manufacturing BMW cars word wide (including India). There is no relationship, // 13 // whatsoever, between O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 other than the latter being an authorized dealer of the former in terms of the Dealership Agreement inter-se between them. The relationship between O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 is not that of a principal and agent relationship and the same is on a principal to principal basis. The entire complaint, in so far as it avers against the O.P. No.1 is in any event vague, baseless and does not mention, even remotely, and deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. No.1. The car purchased by the complainant had no defective engine from the beginning. There is no manufacturing defect in the car as is being alleged by the complainant. Even though there is no privity of contract between the O.P. No.1 and the complainant out of goodwill gesture 70% discount on the cost of servicing and repair. By no stretch of imagination there could be any deficiency of service against O.P. No.1. As informed by O.P. No.2 all the repairs stand completed and the same was intimated by the O.P. No.1 in its reply dated 22nd April, 2016 to the Legal Notice. Thus, the averment in the para under reply with respect to condition of the car is incorrect and misleading. It is denied that the car was not in a road- worthy condition and that the failure of service centre / dealer in fixing the problems in the car tantamount to inherent product defect. It is vehemently denied that the car suffers from any manufacturing defect or that it was due to the alleged inherent defects that the O.P. No.2 could not fix it. The car does not suffer from any inherent // 14 // defect. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1. Any mental agony is not caused to the complainant by the O.P. No.1. The car is with the complainant and the complainant has made statement with an intent to mislead this Commission. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The O.P. No.1 has been informed that the complainant has taken the delivery of the car, and the same is with the complainant in series standard. The said fact has been suppressed by the complainant from this Commission. The complainant is not entitled to replacement of the vehicle. The vehicle does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. It has been informed by the O.P. No.2 that the car has been handed over to the complainant is series standard. Thus, the present complaint has become infructuous as the cause of action does not survive. The car has been restored to series standard by the O.P. No.2 and the complainant has taken delivery of the same. As a goodwill gesture the O.P. No.1 agreed to bear 70% of the total cost incurred in engine repairs even post warranty period. It is denied tht the complaint was filed within the time limitation as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that there existed no cause of action in the past 2 years that can give rise to the instant compliant. The complaint is based on false averments and manufactured causes to harass the O.P. No.1 while there lies no cause of action qua O.P. No.1 // 15 // in any manner. The instant complaint is devoid of merits. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
9. Shri Sanjay Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 has argued that the vehicle which is sold by the O.P. No.2 , is a good and established product in the market and the same is being used by the consumers of the country and foreign countries satisfactorily. The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after satisfying with the conditions and services. In the vehicle, the warranty of three years or running 1 lacs kms, whichever occurs earlier, is given in the vehicle. The complainant did not get any work relating to problem in the engine. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle was brought from time to time to the O.P. No.2 for repairs and repairing was done. The complainant fully used the vehicle till warranty period and after warranty, to save the maintenance charges, the complainant is making averment that the vehicle is having defects. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P. No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against O.P. No.2.
10. On these pleadings of the parties and after perusal of the entire documents produced in the case, following points arise for our determination and we record our findings for the reasons below :-
S.No. Points Findings
1. Whether the complainant has proved that No.
the said car has inherent manufacturing
// 16 //
defect ?
2. Whether the dealer was provided after sale Partly service in warranty period satisfactorily and as per warranty conditions ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for Partly getting compensation as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint ?
As to the Serial No.1.
11. Now we shall examine whether the said car is suffering from manufacturing defects. The complainant pleaded in para 10 and 13 of the complaint as following :-
"10. That during the period of warranty the vehicle was continuously suffering from the problems and several occasions vehicle was brought to opposite party service center where the repairing was done. It was clear proof that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect because of which several times the vehicle was brought to opposite party showroom for repairing and every time the opposite party have assured that there will be no problem in the vehicle. The vehicle was not n a good running condition. Complainant has requested to opposite parties to change the vehicle but opposite parties have given him the assurance that opposite parties will extend the warranty period because in entire warranty period the vehicle was more than half time opposite parties service center.
13. That the service engineer of the service center have clearly informed that they have not been able to solve the problem that why one and other problem is coming in the vehicle every time. This clearly shows that opposite parties have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant for which he has suffered mentally and he has to pay the huge amount of interest along with instalment to the bank and he // 17 // is not able to use the vehicle regularly. So there is double loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
12. From the above averment we find that :-
(1) Due to various problems the vehicle was brought to O.P. No.2 service station for repairing but defects were not removed and problems remained unsolved and vehicle is having manufacturing defect.
(2) Service Engineer of the service centre of O.P. No.2 have clearly informed that they have not been able to solve the problems.
In support of his averment that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defects complainant has not produced a single evidence. Even complainant failed to produce the information received from Service Engineer of O.P. No.2 who informed the complainant that he is not able to solve the problem that is why one and another problem is coming in the vehicle every time. Thus complainant was failed to prove that vehicle is having manufacturing defect
13. In P.C. Sunil (Dr.) Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomative Co. Ltd. III (2016) CPJ 236 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 18 // "8. Coming to the merits of the case, it is an admitted position that the vehicle had been driven by the complainant for more than 1 lac kms. by the time it was examined by the Commissioner on 28.12.2010, the meter reading of that date being 106929. The said reading was 105495 when the vehicle was serviced on 8.9.2010. It is thus evident that there could be no serious defect not to talk of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that is why the complainant could drive it regularly for more than 1 lac kms. The State Commission noted in this regard that the vehicle was regularly taken for service and was being plied after the said servicing. It is also an admitted position that pursuant to the order of the District Forum dated 14.6.2002, the vehicle was taken for removing the defects pointed out in the report of the Commissioner, Ex. C-1. We are in agreement with the State Commission that in the absence of a finding as to which of the defects noted in the report, Ex-.C-1 had not been rectified, there was no reason to pass the subsequent orders which the District Forum came to pass in this case. The expert appointed by the District Forum did not opine that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect. It is only in a case of manufacturing defect that the manufacturer can be asked to either replace the vehicle or refund the sale consideration to the buyer. The normal defects which a vehicle develops due to regular use and wear and tear are to be rectified free of cost during the period of warranty but once that period is over, the buyer has to pay for any defect which the vehicle develops thereafter. In fact, the engine of a car otherwise becomes due for an overhaul, once it has been driven for more than one lac kms. The State Commission rightly felt that under the garb of seeking rectification of the defects mentioned in the report, Ex. C-1, the complainant was seeking rectification of the defects which the vehicle developed thereafter. Such defects could not have been addressed by the District Forum in the execution petition filed before it."
// 19 //
14. We have perused the bill produced by the complainant to which he received from O.P. No.1. In bill No. SIP120200 dated 04.09.2012 the car had covered 26211 km i.e. 1st year of its purchase date. Accordingly in Bill No.SIP130455 dated 09.09.2013 and Bill No.SIP140290 dated 21.06.2014, the car had covered 44469 kms and 52311 km in 2nd and 3rd year of its purchase respectively. During this period repairs undertaken by the O.P. No.2. The car has been repaired by the O.P. No.2 as and when brought to the service centre of O.P. No.2. Defects repaired by O.P. No.2 can not by any stretch of imagination be called as indicative of manufacturing defect. If the defects / problems were of such chronic nature, the complainant would not have been in a position to use the car for thousands of kms. The complainant has to produce expert opinion to prove that that present case is a case of manufacturing defect. But the complainant did not file evidence of expert to prove that fault in the car was not removed at service centre of the O.P. No.2 Thus, we have arrived at the conclusion that there is no manufacturing defect in the said car of the complainant. We therefore, of the view that complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No.1.
As to the Serial No.2.
15. Now we have to discuss about the servicing of the car in warranty period provided by O.P. No.2. We have to see that whether O.P. No.2 Munich Motors BMW dealer was deficient while rendering // 20 // services to the complainant and whether the O.P. No.2 has adopted unfair trade practice.
16. It is admitted that OPs have given the warranty for 3 years period or 100000 kms from the date of purchase of said car. The complainant has averred that he has brought several time in a span of less than three years for repairing the vehicle to service centre of O.P. No.2 He has submitted 16 bills in connection with repair of the said car. During warranty period out of 16 bills, only two times O.P. No.2 has not charged any amount for repair whereas in 14 time he has charged for repairing and recovered the bill amount from the complainant. We mention below the details of bills :-
Date Bill No. Amount
06.02.2012 SIP120076 17,734/-
11.06.2012 SIP120088 17,647.46
04.08.2012 SIP120153 1,640.16
04.09.2012 SIP120200 3,694/-
10.12.2012 SI0120362 19,250/-
17.05.2013 SIP130120 12,359/-
06.06.13 SIP130161 36,187/-
06.06.13 SIP130163 89,602/-
06.06.2013 SIP130164 24,737/-
11.06.2013 SIP130182 22,388/-
09.07.2013 SIP130250 14,214/-
09.09.2013 SIP130455 ----
// 21 //
31.10.2013 SIP130624 1,258/-
13.11.2013 SIP130648 24,737/-
21.06.2014 SIP140290 ----
---------------
2,85,447.62
17. We have thoroughly checked the abovementioned bills. We have found that approximately Rs.2,85,447/62 have been received by the O.P. No.2 from the complainant in warranty period. The O.P. No.2 should have provided the repairing , servicing and parts replacement service without charging as per warranty condition. The above stated act of O.P. No.2 comes under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In our opinion O.P. No.2 is responsible to refund Rs.2,45,674.21 to the complainant out of total amount of Rs.2,85,447.62 excluding charges for Tyre / Break pads, normal wear and tear)
18. The complainant's car is still with O.P No.2 workshop for repairing purpose. The O.P. No.2 has informed the complainant about receipt of Part Basic DDE Co. and EXCH TURBOC from BMW. O.P. No.2 has informed the customer share of bill amount to the complainant. Since complainant's car was not properly serviced during warranty period . As such O.P. No.2 is responsible for its complete repairs & roadworthy condition. During warranty period servicing done by the O.P. No.2 was not satisfactory that is why the car was being brought to the O.P. NO.2 service centre frequently. The O.P. No.2 failed to produce any evidence or document to prove that the car // 22 // has been repaired satisfactorily. Therefore, we find it just and proper to direct the O.P. No.2 to repair the car free of cost instead of charging Rs.1,34,774/-.
19. On the basis of above discussion, we find it just and proper to direct the O.P. No.2 to refund Rs.2,45,674.21 to the complainant charged earlier in warranty period and carry out repair work of Turbo charger, DDE Control Unit and Battery of the said car free of cost. We also find it just to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony as the complainant has suffered a lot. And Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
20. In view of the abovementioned discussions, we allow the compliant partly. The following direction are issued to O.P. No.2.
(i) To refund the amount of Rs.2,45,674.21 (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Twenty One Paise) (repairing and parts replacement charges during warranty period) to the complainant.
(ii) To carry out repair of Turbo charger, DDE, control unit and battery of the car free of cost and handover it in roadworthy condition to the complainant.
(iii) To pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
// 23 //
(iv) To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of this order.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
21/02/2017 21/02/2017 21/02/2017