National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gursimran Singh Walia vs Jaycee Automobiles Pvt Ltd.& 2 Ors. on 13 April, 2026
4
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 19.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2017
(Against the order dated 07.11.2016 in CC No. 46 of 2012 of State
Commission UT Chandigarh
1. Gursimran Singh Walia Appellants
s/o Sh. Kawaljit Singh Walia
r/o H No. 523, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh
2. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd.
SCO No. 491-492
Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Director
Gursimran Singh
(IA No. 86 of 2017 filed by Appellant)
Versus
1. Jaycee Automobiles Pvt Ltd Respondents
Plot No. 171, Industrial Area
Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/
Authorised Signatory (Authorized dealer of Audi India)
Present address for service of Respondent No.1
Jaycee Automobiles Private Limited
G.T.Road, Opp. Dhandari Kalan Railway Station,
Ludhiana
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 now known as
2. M/s Audi India, 3,
North Avenue Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private
Level-3, Maker Ltd.
Maxity, Bandra, Kurla Complex Registered Office : E-1, MIDC Industrial
Bandra ( East), Mumbai Area Phase -III
throughits President / Managing Director/ Village Nigoje, Mhalunge Kharabwadi
Director Chakan
Taluka: Khed, Pune-410 501
3. M/s Audi India-A Division of Registered Office : Silver Utopia, 4th
Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. Floor,
'Manufacturer, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Cardinal Gracious, Chakala, Andheri
Ltd. (SAIPL), Aurangabad, Maharashtra (East), Mumbai-400099
Through its Divisional Manager / Director (IA No. 19602 of 2019 filed by R-2)
FA/3/2017 Page 1 of 87
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s) Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocate
Mr. Kawaljit Singh Walia, Auth. Rep.
For R-1 Ms. Deboshree Saha, Adv. (VC)
For R-2 & R-3 Ms. Ekta Bhasin and
Mr. Sanidhya Sonthalia, Advocate (VC)
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against the Respondents as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 07.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 46 of 2012 inter alia praying for setting aside the order of the State Commission dated 07.11.2016.
2. The Appellant was complainant and the respondents were the Opposite Parties before the State commission.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 19.04.2017. Appellant filed their written arguments on 05.03.2026 while Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their arguments on 02.03.2026. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the State Commission.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are complainant was one of the Director of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. He filed the CC No. 46 of 2012 before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 before the State Commission.
FA/3/2017 Page 2 of 87The said complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on 18.03.2013. Being aggrieved, the Complainant went in Appeal No. 321 of 2023 before this Commission which was allowed vide order dated 29.01.2016 and complaint was remitted to back to the State Commission with directions to get the vehicle examined by experts.
5. The complainant in his complaint stated that he was one of the Director of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. and intended to purchase a new car of AUDI make for his personal use, for which he contacted OP No.1, an authorised dealer of the.company. The representatives of OP No.1 represented that the performance of the car was excellent and of high standards. Allured by the description and features, the complainant purchased AUDI car for an amount of Rs.37,70,000/- and after completing all the formalities, car was delivered to the complainant by OP No.1 on 05.02.2012 with temporary registration number.
6. On 15.04.2012, the complainant noticed a sound variation, when he was driving the said car. The car was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, however, it was not checked. It was stated that on 16.04.2012, when the complainant was travelling from Chandigarh to Patiala, he noticed an abnormal noise in the car which progressively worsened. He informed the representative of the opposite parties, Sh. Tarun Kumar Dangri, telephonically, who initially advised him to bring the vehicle to the workshop the next day. However, as the noise intensified and became severe, the complainant was further advised not to drive the vehicle. Consequently, the car was transported back to the dealer on a flatbed truck by the dealer.
7. On 17.04.2012, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the noise was due to inferior quality diesel, and the fuel injector nozzles were opened for repair. On 18.04.2012, upon starting the vehicle, a new noise was detected from the bottom area, suspected to be from the clutch hosing or gearbox. The gearbox was opened and certain parts were found broken.
FA/3/2017 Page 3 of 878. The complainant was provided a temporary replacement vehicle of the same model. After approximately one month, the gearbox was replaced and the car was returned. Subsequently, a defect arose in the volume control switch of the steering-mounted audio system. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop, where the switch was replaced with an old/defective part from another car. Upon complaint, the said switch was eventually replaced with a new one by the engineer of Opposite Party No. 1 on 07.07.2012. It is further the case of the complainant that after replacement/repair of the gearbox, the car was giving vibrations, which were duly reported to Opposite Party No. 1; however, no solution was offered. The leather upholstery deteriorated progressively, becoming shabby over time. This issue was also brought to the notice of Opposite Party No. 1, but remained unresolved. On 02.08.2012, the air suspension warning and indicator flashed, and the suspension turned abnormally hard. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 on 03.08.2012, but the complainant was asked to bring it on 06.08.2012 due to a non-functional diagnostic computer. On 06.08.2012, the diagnostic system was still not operational. Upon further request, the vehicle was finally taken to the workshop on 07.08.2012. Diagnosis revealed that the level sender attached to the suspension arm was broken. The required part was not in stock, and assurance was given that it would be replaced within a few days.
9. At the time of purchase, the car, in question, its insurance was also done by Opposite Party No.1, which further assured that the complainant would get cashless repair facility, in case of any damage to the same (car). The complainant escalated the issue via email dated 09.08.2012 to the Head, Customer Care of Audi India, alleging manufacturing defects. A reply dated 11.08.2012 from Opposite Party No. 2 assured that a representative/dealer would contact the complainant; however, no such contact was made. A reminder email dated 16.08.2012 was sent, which elicited a response on 20.08.2012, but the grievance remained unresolved.
FA/3/2017 Page 4 of 8710. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a Complaint before the State Commission stating that there exists manufacturing defect in the car, which the opposite parties have failed to rectify. Despite requests made, vehicle has not been replaced with a new one. His prayer for refund of amount paid towards price of the car was also not accepted by the opposite parties. It was stated that the above facts amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties. Prayer was made to issue directions to the opposite parties to replace the car in question, with a brand new defect-free car of the same model, colour, specifications etc. or in alternative to refund Rs.37,70,000/- being its total price plus accessories, alongwith interest @12% per annum; Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation,, towards mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is before this Commission now in the present FA.
11. Appellant(s) have challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
State Commission illegally held that complainant would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(l)(d) of the Act, for the below given following reasons:
(a) That the complaint in question bearing CC No,46 of 2012 was initially decided by the Ld. State Commission U.T Chandigarh on 18.03.2013. The contention of the Opposite Parties regarding that complainant is not consumer as the vehicle in question was purchased in the name of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd., of which the complainant is one of the Directors was rejected by the State Commission. The said order was never challenged by the respondents herein and hence, the finding qua appellant/complainant being consumer of respondents herein attained finality. Now again when the complaint No.46 of 2012 was decided on 07.11.2016, no additional FA/3/2017 Page 5 of 87 evidence/ documentary evidence was tendered by any of the OPs on record by way of additional evidence.
(b) , That the bare perusal of documents attached alongwith complaint and replies filed by OP No. 1 and 2 will reflect that rather Gursimran Singh Walia is the complainant and not M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd.
(c) The documents which were proposed to be placed on record w.e.f. Annexures C-9 to C-11 (colly), if considered, would have clearly reflected that owner of the car in question is Gursimran Singh Walia (i.e. present appellant/complainant) and not M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Matter does not rest here because even no separate order had been passed by the State Commission U.T. Chandigarh while deciding the abovesaid MA No. 263 of 2016 qua the considering of documents w.e.f. Annexures C-9 to C-11. The documents which were proposed to be placed on record vide the abovesaid Misc. Application for additional evidence as mentioned above were vital and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. One of the documents which was part of Annexure C-11 (colly) supra and proposed to be placed on record included information supplied under RTI Act, 2005 from the office of the Registering and Licensing Officer U.T. Chandigarh. Vide the abovesaid information it was clearly mentioned by abovesaid Registering and Licensing Officer, U.T. Chandigarh that correct format of the said car to be registered has to be in the name of Gursimran Singh Waiia. ( d ) The Sales Contract dated 3.2.2012 was proposed to be placed on record and the same document clearly reflected the customer name as Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia and further that there is no mention of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd., on the same. It Is worth mentioning here that as per the terms and conditions of the Sales Contract, orders are non-transferable and no change in the Sales Contract will be allowed. Further it is stated that one of the requirements as per above said sales contract was that wherever bank/finance company is involved, at the time of taking the delivery, all the necessary documents Including all the FA/3/2017 Page 6 of 87 requisite authorization letters needs to be presented where the signatures are duly attested from the financer/banker. As per the above requirements, letter dated 02.02.2012, was issued by Chief Manager of Indian Overseas Bank to OP No.1 stating therein that present appellant/complainant had taken car loan from their bank. Further also that the signature of Mr. Gursimran Singh Walla is verified for the delivery of car as registered owner. In the above circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the owner of the car in question is M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. In order to defeat the lawful claim of the present appellant/complainant, OP No.1 along with his written version also placed on record, copy of Sales Contract dated 3.2.2012 but cleverly did not place on record the terms and conditions of the Sales Contract. Matter does not rest here because bare perusal of the Sales Contract dated 3.2.2012, which has been placed on record by OP No.1, on record along with his written version will reflect that the document is altered and name of company has been added in the same l.e. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. whereas, the name of above mentioned company does not finds mention in the document placed on record by the complainant along with application for additional evidence. Further it is also stated that the sales contract dated 3.2.2012, which has been placed on record by the complainant along with application for additional evidence is the document which is duly attested by Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh. OP No.1 had left no stone unturned to harass the gullible consumer and on the other hand side, mislead the Ld. Commission below by placing on record altered document in the shape of Annexure A-2, along with written statement reflecting that on Receipt No.2090 dated 3.2.2012, the name of company i.e. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt Ltd., is added whereas the facts remains that In the original receipt No.2090 dated 3.2.2012, the name of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd., is not mentioned. The copy of the Original Receipt No.2090 dated 3.2.2012, procured by present appellant/complainant under Right to Information FA/3/2017 Page 7 of 87 ✓ Act, 2005 and placed on record along with his application for additional evidence as Annexure C-11 (colly) reflects that only the name of present appellant/ complainant i.e. Mr. Gursimran Singh Waiia is mentioned and not of the company i.e. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd.
(e) That the appellant/complainant filed separate MA No.264 of 2016 for amendment of the complaint including amended title, wherein the prayer was made to the Ld. State Commission below for arraying M/s. Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. as complainant No.2 in the array of parties. It is further stated that when the abovesaid misc. application came up for hearing before the State Commission U.T. Chandigarh, the Bench asked the complainant to withdraw the said misc. application because, same will unduly complicate the issue and prolong the litigation as already there is a finding in favour of the complainant by State Commission vide their order dated 18.03.2013, regarding that complainant is consumer of OPs and further that the said finding has never been challenged by OPs and attained finality. In the circumstances mentioned above complainant withdrew MA No.264 of 2016 without knowing the consequences of the same. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India that if the substantial rights of the parties are pitted against hyper technicalities, it is the former which will prevail.
( f) That the Ld, State Commission below instead of relying upon the expert evidence, passed the impugned order relying upon their own personal knowledge which is totally bad in law in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Commission in number of cases in which it has been clearly held that expert evidence is mandatory including as per section 13(l)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. If the Ld. State Commission was of the view that the expert evidence on record is vague, the right course was to appoint another expert agency for expert opinion. Even National Commission Commission vide order dated VK/3/2WT7 Page 8 of 87 29.01.2016, in FA No.321 of 2013, had directed to the Ld. State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh to get the disputed vehicle examined by expert, while setting aside the judgment passed by Ld. State commission U.T. Chandigarh in CCNo.46 of 2012, date of decision 18.03.2013.
( g) That in the present case in question, the case was otherwise also squarely covered by the principles of res ipsa-loquitur because the facts in the case including documentary evidence on record clearly reflected that the car in question was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. Even as per the report of the expert dated 30.05.2016, it was concluded by the experts (who are eminent personalities from Mechanical Engineering Department of PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh) that replacement of the gear box assembly of a new vehicle Is a very unusual and not desirable. In the circumstances, even this Hon'ble Commission in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Naryan Prasad & anr 1(2012) CPJ 213(NC) had clearly held that, admission on behalf of OPs that defects were removed shows there were defects In tractor and so, provisions of Section 13 of the Act not applicable to the facts of the case. State Commission below had not taken the manufacturing defect of the replacement of the gear box, seriously when the car of the appellant had only covered 5771 KMs
(h) That. State Commission had noted that problem of abnormal vibrations sometimes was reported by the appellant on 17.07.2012 and thereafter held that defects were removed free of costs and satisfactory note dated 17.07.2012 was also signed by the driver of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the problem of abnormal vibrations reported on 17.07.2012 was never attended to by OP No.1. Bare perusal of Annexure C-19 along with the written statement filed by OP No.1 would reflect that only steering button set was replaced and further all suspension was checked in 15 minutes whereas. In the said document there Is no mention of attending to the problem reported of abnormal vibration. Further also that the Invoice which was raised by FA/3/2017 Page 9 of 87 OP No.1 to Audi India i.e. OP No.2 on 17.07.2012 will clearly reflect that in the column of labour details, that no charges have been levied on account of attending to the complaint of abnormal vibration in the car In question. It Is also worth mentioning here that complainant on 17.07.2012 never reported the problem of suspension and despite of the same Annexure C-19 along with written statement of OP No.1 will reflect that they have checked entire suspension and found It OK. (The entire suspension was checked as per OP No.1 within 15 minutes) whereas tax Invoice dated 17.07.2012 in the column of labour details will reflect that no charges were levied towards checking of entire suspension by OP No.1. The above said facts clearly reflect that the documents which have been placed by OP No.1 on record, have been placed In the utmost rash and negligent manner because the problem of suspension was reported by the complainant on 3.8.2012. Even otherwise, the complaint regarding abnormal vibration could not have been closed on the basis of job card on the same day only because the same could have been checked only during test drive of the vehicle for at least about 500 to 1000 kms. or so. The appellant had highlighted the practices of wrong issuing job cards by the respondents vide their MA No.263 of 2016 (i.e. application for additional evidence) vide which Annexures C-6 to C-8 were also placed on record. The abovesaid documents clearly reflected that car of the appellant reported on 03.08.2012 with the problem of Airmatic Light Glows on ICM but on the said date the vehicle could not be repaired because their diagnostic tester on the said date was not functional and appellant/complainant was sent back and asked to come on 06th or 7th August, 2012 whereas, the. State Commission below did not took cognizance of events reported by the complainant on 3.8.2012 vide the Impugned Order. Despite of above, satisfaction note (Annexure C-8) was issued by the respondents herein in utmost negligent manner because the vehicle on 03,08.2012 was never repaired and was sent back but despite of the same, satisfaction note was got signed. In the satisfaction note, it was FA/3/2017 Page 10 of 87 written that vehicle was test driven and customer is satisfied with its performance after repair. In the circumstances, the practices of the respondents herein in issuing satisfaction notes are totally illegal and their satisfaction note cannot be relied upon.
(i) That the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that a new car costing about Rs.37.70 lacs remained stranded in the workshop of OPs for repairs w.e.f, 17,04,2012 to 14.05.2012 due to various reasons including that sometimes the parts were not available. Further sometimes the Audi Technical support was not there etc. Even if an alternative, the vehicle was given to the complainant, he was never satisfied with the services of OPs since the date of purchase of the car. The findings recorded in the Impugned Order regarding that proper service was given to the complainant and further that after 17.07,2012 (when the car was taken to the workshop of OPs and complaint regarding abnormal vibrations sometimes and Steering Volumes were not working properly were made) car was again taken to the workshop on 7.8.2012 and that no complaint was made qua vibration is bereft of merits. On 3.8.2012, the car in question was taken to the workshop of the OPs, with the complaint of vibration sound and Airmatic suspension Light glows on Cluster Meter [admitted fact in written version of OP No.1 contained in Para No.5 (h)], the car was not repaired on account of that diagnostic computer of the OPs is not working and further OPs told the complainant to come on 6/7.8.2012. Matter does not rest here as when the car was again taken on the workshop of OPs on 7.8.2012, despite of the fact that there was no red mark on the Left Front Wish Bone of the vehicle on its lower side exactly on the same place where the Airmatic level sender/sensor is located in the vehicle nor there was any external impact but despite of the same, the OP No.1 had taken categorical stand in Para No.5 (j) of its written version to the extent that "after thorough check up and after complete diagnosis, it was found that there was red mark on the Left Front Wish Bone of the vehicle on Its lower side exactly on the same place where the Airmatic level FA/3/2017 Page 11 of 87 sender/sensor is located in the vehicle which had resulted into failure of Air Suspension - Level Sender of the vehicle was broken and due to which Airmatic light was blowing on cluster monitor which was due to an external impact caused by the vehicle having hits some bricks underneath which was possibly was being driven on a very 33 fast speed and in rough manner. Otherwise, there is no reason that there would be any kind of impact or mark on the underneath of the vehicle unless it has jumped over some bricks on a high speed which damaged it from below. The Technical Expert of Audi India also diagnosed the Vehicle and found that the damage has been done to the vehicle only because of external impact due to rough driving of the vehicle. Photographs of the vehicle also show the Red Mark Impact beneath the vehicle which confirm that the vehicle has been damaged due to an external Impact Photographs are annexed as Annexure R-15, The above stand of the OP No.1, as contained in Para No.5 (j) of the written version is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is factually incorrect, concocted for the purposes of present complaint. Bare perusal of Photographs at Annexure R-15 dated 01.11.2012 (placed on record by OP No.1 along with its written statement prepared on 23.11.2012) will reflect that the link/stud in the Air Suspension System is fully intact. (Car of the appellant/ complainant is in the custody of OPs since 7.8.2012 till date). In order to shatter the above said version of OP No.1, appellant/complainant filed MA No.227 of 2016 before the Ld. State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh dated 14.07.2016 (i.e. application for appointment of Local Commissioner who should click the photographs of the complete area beneath the car where link/stud is fitted along with level sender of right front wish bone (suspension arm) which is intact and as well as of the front wish bone (suspension arm) which is broken and further for clicking the photographs of the broken link/stud etc.). The said MA No.227 of 2016 was allowed by Ld. State Commission, UT, Chandigarh and in pursuance to the same, the photographs were clicked and placed on record vide MA No.238 of 2016. Reply to MA FA/3/2017 Page 12 of 87 No.238 of 2016 was filed by OP No.1. The defence of OP No.1 contained in Para No.5 (j) (Preliminary Objections in written version, is concocted to defeat the lawful claim of the appellant/complainant). In order to justify the above said defence, the OP No.1 broke the link/stud before the Inspection of the vehicle by the Expert Team to be held on 26.05.2016. The vehicle of the complainant is in the custody of OP No.1 since 7.8.2012 till date. Written version of OP No.1 is dated 23.11.2012. Along with written version of OP No.1, photographs Ann. R-15 dated 01.11.2012 were placed on record reflecting the link/ stud in the Air Suspension System is intact. Inspection of the vehicle by the expert team was carried on 26.05.2016, wherein it was observed in the report of the expert dated 30.05.2016 that link/stud in the Air Suspension System was found to be broken. Further when on the permission of Ld. State Commission, Chandigarh, the photographs were clicked and placed on record, those photographs also reflected that link/stud is broken. The stand of OP No.1 in reply to MA No.238 of 2016 reflects, that link/stud was broken, when the car brought to OP No.1 on 7.8.2012. It is stated that link/stud was intact in the photographs filed by OP No.1 i.e. Annexure R-15 dated 01.11.2012. It is not understandable as to how the link/stud could be set to be broken on 7.8.2012 when the car was brought to the showroom of OP No.1.
(j) Deliberately the link/stud was broken by the OPs in order to sustain their defence contained in written version regarding external impact when there was no such impact. The defence of the OPs regarding external impact is no defence in the eyes of law and in the absence of the same, it can easily be concluded that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the car in question. The version of the complainant is further corroborated by expert report dated 30.05.2016.
(k) State Commission below wrongly recorded that at the time of arguments that both the parties reported before the Commission that the vehicle in question could have been taken for test drive, even with defect qua airmatic suspension. No such statement at any point of time FA/3/2017 Page 13 of 87 was made by the appellant/complainant and thus, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
(l) That. State Commission has wrongly concluded in the Impugned Order that that no complaint qua rattling, noise was indicated by the complainant to the opposite parties. Bare perusal of the documentary evidence on record including admissions of the opposite parties, it can be easily concluded that problem of unusual sound was duly reported to the OPs and to this extent OP No.I has duly admitted in Para No.5 (a) of the Preliminary Objections of its Written Statement that the representative of OP No.1 received a call on 16.04.2012 regarding that some unusual sound from the vehicle is coming. Complainant being a layman does not understand the scientific terminology and names regarding rattling sounds. In the complaint, complainant had termed the above said rattling noise to be a sound variation in the running vehicle as compared to normal running of vehicle. Further in the complaint, complainant had termed the said sound variation also to be sound became horror. Further also that OP No.1 had duly admitted in Para No.5 (h) of its written statement (preliminary objections) that on 3.8.2012, purchaser of the vehicle through its driver informed that there is some problems of vibration sound etc. As an matter of fact the above said problem in regard to vibration sound/lncreasing sound of the engine/sound becoming horror was never resolved by the CPs. Instead of solving the above said issue rather more complication had been created by OPs vide their false defence contained in the written version regarding that due to external impact the air suspension had failed.
(m) That the Judgments which have been relied upon by the Ld. State Commission below in rendering the impugned order are clearly distinguishable and not at all attracted to the present facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(n) That the Ld. State Commission below had not appreciated the fact that respondents herein have not only created the false defence but FA/3/2017 Page 14 of 87 have also manipulated certain documents in order to reflect that complainant is not the purchaser of the vehicle but the company. In order to highlight the illegal practices adopted by OPs, complainant by way of additional evidence had placed on record certain documents i.e. Annexures C-9 to C-11 (colly) but the same were not taken on record even subject to costs, but only Annexures C-1 to C-8 were taken on record. It Is settled law that the documents which have material bearing on the judgment to be delivered must be taken on record even if it is filed at the appellate stage. In the present case in question, the said documents were filed along with application for additional evidence before the trial court only.
(o) Reliance has been placed in the case of NACHIKET P. SHIRGAONKAR V. PANDIT AUTOMOTIVE LTD. & ANR.-Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006, Date of decision 25.2.2008, Hyundai Motors India Limited V. Affiliated East West Press (Pvt.) Limited I (2008) CPJ 19 (NO), CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD- VS. DAIMLRCHRYSLER INDIA PVT LTD. AND ANR
(p) . State Commission below had wrongly recorded the presence of present appellant/complainant in the Impugned Order dated 07.11.2016 passed in Complaint l\lo,46 of 2012, whereas, the facts remained that at the time of final arguments, father of the complainant along with Advocate Sh, Deepak Aggarwal were present. The above said facts clearly reflect non-application of mind by the Ld. State Commission below.
(q) . State Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that no affidavit of the expert from the side of Audi India i.e. OP No.2 was filed along with the written version but the affidavits which were filed Included evidence by way of affidavit of Deepak Jain who Is the Director of OP No.1 and further another affidavit of Umesh V. Khadpe, Manager (Legal) of OP No.2. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 In Para No.5 Q") of the preliminary objections. It is stated that technical expert of Audi India also diagnosed the vehicle and found that the damaged FA/3/2017 Page 15 of 87 has been done to the vehicle only because of external impact due to rough driving of the vehicle, whereas, no supporting affidavit of the said technical expert of Audi India had been placed on record by the OPs. Hence, the above version of the OPs cannot be believed and remains totally unsubstantiated.
12. Counsel for the Appellant argued that on 02.02.2012 complainant purchased Audi Car for Rs.37,70,00/- and on the basis of performa invoice India Overseas Bank vide letter dated 02.02.2012, wrote to OP No. 1 that Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia had taken car loan. In this regard, Demand Draft dated 02.02.2012 for Rs. 37,70,000/-(remitted by Gursimran Singh Walia as mentioned in the Draft), for payment of car and further that the car is to be hypothecated in the name of Indian Overseas Bank. Further request was also made by Bank to mark lien of the Bank on the documents pertaining to car. Counsel also argued that that Bank verified the signature of Gursimran Singh Walia for delivery of the car as Registered Owner. Further, on 03.02.2012, Copy of Original Sales contract in the name of Gursimran Singh Walia was issued and attested by Indian Overseas Bank. It is not out of place to mention here that OP no. 1 had placed on record tempered sales contract and the same is at Page No. 187, where after the words of Amit Gupta they have added the word (M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd.). It is also argued that draft of Rs.37,70,000/- by the name of Gursimarn Singh Walia dated 03.02.2012 was issued by the OP No. 1 on the basis of forwarding letter dated 02.02.2012 of Bank. Copy of receipt dated 03.02.2012 in the name of Gursimran Singh Walia was issued and attested by Indian Overseas Bank. It is not out of place to mention here that OP no. 1 had placed on record tempered receipt and the same is at Page No. 188, wherein above the words of Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia the word (M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd.) have been added. In order to purchase the above car, complainant obtained loan of Rs.20 lakhs from Indian Overseas Bank. It is also argued that on 05.02.20212 Vehicle was delivered to the complainant without any documents. It is FA/3/2017 Page 16 of 87 further stated that the documents were delivered on the next date i.e. 06.02.2012 as the same is ambit clear at Page No. 193 where under the handwritten note, Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia had written received all documents under his signatures. On 15.04.2012, Complainant noticed sound variation in the running vehicle and Complainant was going to Patiala from Chandigarh he noticed that sound in the car started increasing. Further vehicle was taken on flat bed truck to OP No.1 on their arranged truck. Initially OP No.1 told the complainant that noise / sound is due to poor quality and it has moisture in it and resultantly it opened fuel injector nosals of the car but ultimately gear hosing was found to be broken as some part from inside the gear box had force fully broken the same from inside. In the circumstances vehicle was kept by OP no.1 with him for approximately one month as parts were not available and ultimately the entire gear box as replaced. The cost of which was 4.72 lakhs. Ultimately car was delivered back to the complainant on 14.05.2012. OP no. 1 had admitted in their reply at page no. 130 that gear box was damaged form the bottom and the entire gear oil has been leaked which caused huge damaged to the gear box which is not normal breakdown and it can happened only in rarest of rarest cases. Further in the tax invoice it is also recorded that abnormal noise from engine was coming. Kilometers when the vehicle came to the workshop was at 6771. Further as above replacement was due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. During the period when the car was parked at the workshop of OP no. 1, a volume control switch of audio music system on the steering wheel was changed with some other car and defective and old one was fixed on the car. When complainant resented it was replaced with new one. Car was taken to the workshop of OP no. 1 with the problem of abnormal noise including volumes switch on steering wheel of the vehicle went out of order. OP no. 1 could not cure abnormal vibrations but steering volumes switch was replaced. On 02.08.2012, the air suspension warning and indicator fk/3/2GX7 Page 17 of 87 lamp of the car flashed and suspension of the vehicle became hard and it was sounding as if the entire car is on shock absorber only.
13. Further, on 03.08.2012, the car was sent to the workshop of OP No.1.
Even the vehicle was thoroughly physically checked and driven but the complainant was asked to bring the car on 06.08.2012 or 07.08.2012 as their diagnosing computer is out of order on that day. It is not out of place here to mention that on 03.08.2012, OP no. 1 indulged in unfair trade practices as on the said date they got executed satisfaction note (page no. 290) from the driver of the complainant certifying that vehicle has been attended, test driven and that the complainant is satisfied with its performance after repair and accept the delivery. However, on 06.08.2012, OP no. 1 informed the complainant to send the car on 07.08.2012 as its diagnosing computer is still out of order. On the said date the vehicle was taken to the showroom of OP no.1 as per their advice to rectify and repair air suspension warning as indicator lamp of the car flashed and suspension of the vehicle became hard. On 07.08.2012, representative of OP No. 1 stated the part in question is not available and suggested to replace the same with one of the stationary car of other customer which was opposed by the father of complainant by mentioning that car owners leave their cars with the dealer ship on trust and change of part in their absence is breach of trust etc. As per above mentioned bitter experience volumes switch changed from the vehicle of complainant and later replaced. A hand-written note was noted on the repair order at page No. 205 to 207 and since 07.08.2012 the vehicle is in the custody of OP No. 1. The complainant wrote detailed email to OP on 09.08.2012 and on 11.08.2012 OP acknowledged the email of the complainant . The complainant then filed a complaint before the State Commission and OP No.1 in their written version stated that : Red Mark was found on the Left Front Wish Bone of the Vehicle on its lower side exactly on the same place where the Airmatic level sender/sensor is located in the vehicle which had resulted into failure of the Air Suspension level sender of the vehicle was broken and FA/3/2017 Page 18 of 87 ) due to which Airmatic Light was glowing on Cluster Monitor which was apparently due to an external impact caused by the vehicle having hit some Bricks underneath which was possibly was being driven on a very fast speed and in rough manner. Otherwise, there is no reason that there would be any kind of impact or mark on the underneath of the vehicle unless it has jumped over some bricks on a high speed which damaged it from below. The Technical Expert of Audi India also diagnosed the Vehicle and found that the damage has been done to the vehicle only because of external impact due to rough driving of the vehicle. Photographs of the Vehicle also show the Red Mark impact beneath the vehicle which confirm that the vehicle has been damaged due to an external impact. It is not out of place to mention here that OP No. 2 i.e. manufacturer also took the same defense as had been taken by OP No.1. Expert opinion reflecting that replacement of gear box assembly was replaced by the authorized dealer. The replacement of the gear box assembly of a new vehicle is very unusual and not desirable. Further expert opined that a link/ stud in the air suspension system was found to be broken. Whereas in the photograph dated 07.08.2012 at page no. 201 it is intact. In order to bring true facts to light before State Commission, complainant filed application placing on record photographs and the same was allowed. In pursuance of the same photographs were clicked as per directions of State Commission at the premises of Op No. 1. Photographs clearly reflected that deliberately the link/stud was broken down by OP no.1 in connivance with technical person of Op No. 2 in order to show to the inspection team when the inspection was carried out. Stud was deliberately broken in order to show to experts that it is not a case of manufacturing defect in the vehicle but only a case of broken stud whereas in the photographs dated 07.08.2012 relied upon by Ops at page no. 201, it is reflected that the ball of stud / level sender had come out from the joint due to which the suspension had stopped working. If in such a manner ball gives way from the joint, it is very unusual and is a manufacturing FA/3/2017 Page 19 of 87 defect and can become cause of a major accident. Further, the OPs have tampered with the vital evidence.
14. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following judgments :
1. M/s Diamler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. and Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008.
2. Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd. earlier known as Shriram Chits ( K) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghachand Associates - Civil Appeal No. 6301 of 2024
3. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Medical Eleborate Concepts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - Civil Appeal No. 4192-4194 of 2023
4. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. C G House Vs. Diamler Chrysler India Pvt. Ld. ( earlier known as Mercedes Benz India Ltd.)- CC No. 51 of 2006
5. Momna Gauri Vs. Regional Manager and Ors.-2014 (13) SCC 307
6. Malabar Motors Vs. K V Jayarajan and Anr.- RP No. 2741 of 2023
7. Escorts Ltd. Vs. Naryan Prasad and Anr.- RP No. 1189-1190 of 2010
8. Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narai Prasad and Ors.-RP No. 1652 of 2006
9. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Casino Dias and Anr. -RP No. 1369 and 1370 of 2024
10. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ldtd. Vs. Diamler Chrysler India Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.-OP No. 9 of 2006
11. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr.-Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2000
15. Counsel for R-1 argued that Appellant has no locus to file the Complaint before the State Commission since he does not come under the definition of Consumer. The State Commission has rightly held that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as the Vehicle in question was admittedly purchased in connection with the FA/3/2017 Page 20 of 87 business/commercial activities of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt Ltd and there is no privity of Contract with the Appellant and the Respondent. The documents placed on record clearly indicate that invoice was issued in the name of the said company, delivery certificate, insurance policy and other documents agreed between M/s Commando Caterers Pvt Ltd and Respondents and other documents, which were prepared at the time, when the car was delivered to the Appellant on 05.02.2012 are in the name of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt Ltd and not in the name of the Appellant. Further, Appellant deliberately and intentionally failed to show this commission the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, wherein the Ld. State Commission dismissed the complaint bearing CC No. 32 of 2013 filed by the Appellant and held that "Complainant is not entitled to raise the issue again and again. Therefore, once all the documents and contention raised in the application has been already considered and decided by this Commission , the second application of the same cause and contention is not maintainable and therefore dismissed the Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2013 on this ground alone. It is further argued that the Appellant has never challenged the said order dated 28.11.2013 and as such the Order dated 28.11.2013 passed by. State Commission, Chandigarh has attained finality and consequently the appellant is barred from reagitating the already settled disputes between the parties.
16. Further, it is pertinent to state that Sales Contract, Invoices and Delivery Note, Gate Pass, Insurance Cover, Form No. 21 & 22, Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by Respondent No.1 clearly reveals that the vehicle in question has never been sold to the Appellant but has been sold to M/s Commando Caterers Private Limited, SCO 492, Sector 35C, Chandigarh. Further, the PAN No. of the Company is also mentioned on the said invoice. On the request of M/s Commando Caterers Private limited, it is also mentioned on the invoice that the vehicle has been hypothecated to Indian Bank. The FA/3/2017 Page 21 of 87 vehicle has been admittedly purchased by the Company and on all the documents, the address and name of the company is duly mentioned and all these documents have been received and accepted by the Appellant under his own signatures. It was alleged that Receipt No. 2090 (Pg No. 188 and 303) dated 03.02.2012 and Sale Contract (Pg No. 187 and 304) was tampered by Respondent No.1 are false and frivolous. It is submitted that the Appellant himself who after issuance of the Receipt and Sale Contract insisted that the receipt and Sale contract be issued in the name of the Commando Caterers Pvt ltd which was accordingly issued on the asking of the Appellant. It is clear that the Appellant first asked a receipt and Sale Receipt in his individual name and then in order to defraud the bank got the receipt and Sale contract changed in the name of the Company and also got the vehicle purchased in the name of the Company and is now making false allegations that the respondent No.1 tampered with the document. Respondent No.1 had no reason to make any changes as it does not matter to the respondent No.1 whether the vehicle is purchased by any individual or any company. It is also submitted that it cannot be ruled out that the appellant who is alleging to have taken loan from the bank in his individual name on the basis of receipts/sale contract in his individual name, subsequently got it changed only and only to defraud the bank so that in case of default by the Appellant, the bank cannot take the possession of the vehicle as the same is in the name of the Company. Respondent No.1 has acted on the instructions of the complainant who himself has admitted that since he was not having any address proof, therefore he purchased the vehicle in the name of the Company. It is a matter of record that all the documents which have been made in the name of M/s Commonado Caterers Private Limited have been duly accepted and signed by the Appellant with open eyes and now the Appellant is making frivolous and false allegations. It is the Appellant who had obtained the receipt and Sales FA/3/2017 Page 22 of 87 contract for onward submissions to the bank and subsequently purchased the vehicle in the name of the company. The issuance of the demand draft by the bank mentioning "remitted by the Gursimran Singh Walia" does not make the appellant the buyer of the vehicle. It is a settled principal of law that a bald assertion of 'personal use' is wholly insufficient. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence demonstrating personal use, the Appellant cannot be conferred the status of a "consumer" under the Act. It is further submitted that if accompany wishes to purchase a vehicle for personal use of its Directors, resolution needs to be passed. Hence, in the present case no Board Resolution was passed to purchase the new vehicle. Reliance is placed on Parampal singh Vs Universal Motors Through its Prop/Partner/Principal Officer 2018 SCO Online NCDRC 857 The expert report relied upon by the Appellant does not conclusively establish any inherent manufacturing defect. At best, it makes general observations, without identifying any specific defect attributable to manufacturing process. The. State Commission has correctly held that report is vague and non-conclusive and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under Section 13(1) (C) of the Act. Replacement of a part during warranty period, by itself does not amount to an admission of manufacturing defect. It is further pertinent to state that report has not mention any specific part, mechanical or otherwise to be inherently defective and specify the manner in which it could be so considered. Further, the report is not definitive and categorical in its recommendation since it does not mention which part is to be considered to be inherently defective. Reliance is placed in the Judgment of this Commission Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd Vs Anuj Gupta [NC/FA/258/2022] decided on 28.02.2025. It is also argued that the Respondent, while carrying out the repair works of the vehicle which is evident from the job cards placed before the. SCDRC FA/3/2017 Page 23 of 87 establishes that the vehicle was mishandled gravely and there was an external impact and instances of rash driving due to which the Air Suspension got damaged. ii. It is not out of place to state that the Appellant while initially filing theConsumer Complaint was ignorant of the fact that as per Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the Appellant was under an obligation an to file an expert report and not vice versa. The State Commission rightfully observed that the gear box of the vehicle was replaced free of cost along with one-time replacement of horn and steering switch. Simply because the gear box assembly was changed as a one-time measure does not entail that there was a manufacturing defect. iii. That pursuant to the SCDRC, while placing reliance on the expert report dated 30.05.2016 held that the said report was vague and not reliable. The report by Director of PEC University of Technology was not complete and conclusive. Appellant's vehicle was repeatedly repaired by the Respondent No. 1 at their own cost. The Appellant however, wanted the Respondent No. 1 to tweak and modify the vehicle as per his whims and fantasies and hence was raising the demand of a brand-new car since the problems started to arise in the vehicle. Further, Appellant was supplied an alternative car during the time his vehicle was lying for repair with the Respondent No. 1. The SCDRC rightfully observed that the Appellant had made various allegations regarding leather upholstery and steering switch however, the said allegations were baseless and without any shred of evidence. Instead, the job card dated 07.08.2012 and email dated 20.08.2012 make it apparent that there was no lack of service provided by the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No.1.
17. The documentary evidence on record clearly indicates that certain issues arose due to external factors, road conditions, FA/3/2017 Page 24 of 87 and usage which cannot be attributed to any manufacturing fault or dealer negligence. The Appellant has failed to rule out misuse, external impact or environmental factors which is mandatory before alleging manufacturing defect.
18. On 16.04.2012, Respondent No.1 categorically, over a telephonic call, requested and instructed the Appellant not to drive the vehicle any further and to stop the vehicle at that very location. However, as per the Appellant's own admission, the Appellant continued to drive the vehicle in complete disregard of the said instructions issued by Respondent No.1. From the aforesaid conduct, it is evident that the Appellant deliberately and intentionally failed to comply with the instructions of Respondent No.1 in order to derive undue advantage at the cost of Respondent No.1/dealer. It is also argued that It is a settled position of law that the onus to prove that a vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect lies squarely upon the Appellant. Mere allegations or dissatisfaction with the performance of the vehicle do not constitute proof of a manufacturing defect unless substantiated by cogent and reliable expert evidence. This Commission has repeatedly held that, in the absence of an expert report establishing an inherent manufacturing defect, no liability can be fastened upon the manufacturer or dealer. Reliance is placed on Classic Automobiles Vs Lila Nand Mishra & Ors [I (2010). CPJ 235 (NC)] Further, it is pertinent to state that this Commission in the matter of Escorts Construction Equipment Limited Vs Ranyodh Singh [ 2023 SCC Online NCDRC 648] has held that in absence of any expert evidence, merely on the fact that the car was reportedly brought to the Service station for repairs/rectifications, it cannot be held that there was a manufacturing defect in the car. It is further submitted that all the defects were carried under warranty and without charging to the complete satisfaction of the Appellant.
FA/3/2017 Page 25 of 8719. Further, appellant had mishandled and used the vehicle roughly from the date of purchase: It is submitted that the appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable for the sole reason that despite the passage of 10 years and multiple cases, the Appellant has still not been able to establish as to how the vehicle suffers from an inherent manufacturing defect.. It is pertinent to state herein that the Appellant purchased the Vehicle on 05.02.2012 and the Appellant had used his vehicle for more than 11,000 kms in the initial 6 months of its purchase and the same would not have had been possible if there was a manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Reliance is placed on R. Baskar Vs D.N & Ors IV (2006) CPJ 257 (NC) wherein it held that Vehicle had been in use for one year and five months and had run over 9808 kms, it is difficult to believe that the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects. It was further observed by this Commission in the case titled as Md. Hassan Khalid Haider Vs General Motors India 1 Pvt Ltd 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 667 that "Had there been a manufacturing defect, the car could not have run for nearly 10 months and covered approximately more than 25,000 kms. This circumstances itself is a testimony that the car had no manufacturing defects"
20. It is an admitted position that whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop, Respondent No.1 promptly attended to it and carried out necessary checks and replacements strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's warranty policy. It is pertinent to state that temporary replacement vehicle was also provided, demonstrating bonafide conduct and absence of any deficiency in service. It is further pertinent to state that Job cards, service records and satisfaction notes placed on record clearly establish that due service was rendered and complaints were duly addressed. It is pertinent to state that the law is well settled that replacement or refund of a vehicle is an extreme relief and can be granted only when a clear inherent and irremediable manufacturing defect is proved. Reliance is placed on Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra (2006) 4 SCC 644- [Para 6] in which it was , inter FA/3/2017 Page 26 of 87 alia, held that if the manufacturing defect was established, then replacement of the entire item or the replacement of the defective parts, is only called for. In fact, reference was made to warranty condition which referred only to replacement of only the defective parts and not the car itself. It is further submitted that Reliance is placed on Maruti Udyog Vs Casino Dias & Ors MANU/CF/0120/2009- para 27 held that "under the warranty conditions, Petitioner and Respondent no.2 have done everything possible to hand over the vehicle to the satisfaction of Respondent No.1, but Respondent No.1 abandoned the vehicle although the vehicle was properly attended to during the warranty period and defective components were replaced for free of charge". From the above conduct of the appellant it is quite evident that Appellant has been adamant throughout with a predetermined mind to get replacement of the vehicle. In the present case, the appellant seeks replacement/refund merely on the basis of dissatisfaction, which is legally untenable. It is pertinent to state that entitlement to get refund of purchase price of a car is feasible only if defects are established to be manufacturing defect with significant impact on the functioning of the vehicle. However, in the present case, Appellant failed to established the same through the expert opinion report.
21. It is also argued that the Appellant has deliberately left the said vehicle at the showroom of Respondent No. 1 since 07.08.2012. It is further argued that repeated reminders were sent to the Appellant vide email dated 20.08.2012 and 07.09.2012 seeking approval for carrying out the necessary repairs; however, the Appellant failed to respond to the same. Instead of permitting the repair of the vehicle, the Appellant insisted upon replacement with a brand new car without establishing the existence of any manufacturing defect. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the conduct of the Appellant was. neither prudent nor reasonable and clearly demonstrates a lack of bona fides. Reliance is placed on Rakesh Jain FA/3/2017 Page 27 of 87 Vs Audi India & Ors in FA No. 1084 of 2019 by this Commission on 06.09.2024.
22. Counsel for R-2 argued that State Commission, after due appreciation of the relevant facts and principles of law, has held that there is no manufacturing defect in the car and that the Appellant is not a consumer. The State Commission has rightly rejected the expert report provided by PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, as being vague. The State Commission has rightly observed that the expert opinion has been made in a mechanical and vague manner, which fails to provide any details of the inspection carried out or the reasons attributable to the alleged manufacturing defect. Expert Opinion is also silent on the methodology employed by the experts to determine whether the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. Reliance is placed on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. [(2009) 9 SCC 709] and recent judgment of this Hon'ble Commission in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Put. Ltd. v. Anuj Gupta & Anr. [FA/258/2022],
23. It is also argued that the Appellant has no locus standi to appear before Hon'ble Consumer Fora as he does not come under the definition of "consumer" as per Section 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("Act"). There is no privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondents. It is submitted that in the instant case, the said car was admittedly purchased in the name of "M/s. Commando Caterers Put. Ltd.". State Commission has also rightly observed that all documents pertaining to the car are in the name of the commercial activity and not the Appellant. It is a well settled principle of consumer law that the onus to prove manufacturing defect is on the Complainant. It is well established that "manufacturing defect" is much more than an ordinary defect. It is no more res Integra that manufacturing defect is much more than an ordinary defect, which creeps in while the making of the FA/3/2017 Page 28 of 87 machinery and the same cannot be removed simply by changing defective part of the car.lt is a defect with which a car cannot run. Reliance is placed on Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra & Ors. [I (2010) CPJ 235(NC)J, and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Ors., [Ill (2009) CPJ 229(NC)J, State Commission has rightly observed that there are no defects in the vehicle which can be termed as 'manufacturing defect'. Further, this Hon'ble Commission in the recent matter of Escorts Construction Equipment Limited v. Ranyodh Singh [2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 648], has held that in 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.
24. It is also argued that that Respondent No. 2 is neither vicariously liable to the Appellant/Complainant nor it is liable for all the acts, commissions or omissions of the Respondent No. 1. The relationship between the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 is that of principal-to-principal. Respondent No. 2 (manufacturer) cannot be held accountable for any deficiency in service of the Respondent No. 1 (dealer), if any. Dealership Agreement between Respondent No. 2 and 1 dated 17.12.2015 under Article 3, Clause 2 (Business Entity of Dealer) categorically provides that "The Dealer is not authorized to act on behalf of the Supplier. It is further expressly agreed that this arrangement is purely on a "Principal to Principal" basis". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 125], held that the liability of the deficiency of service of a dealer could not be fastened onto a car manufacturer when the contract was on a principal-to-principal basis, and no knowledge of the dealer's wrongful acts was attributable to the car manufacturer. Further, Respondent No. 2 has terminated the dealership of Respondent No. 1 from 20.01.2021. It is also argued that The car was purchased by the Appellant/Complainant on 05.02.2012. When the car was taken to the FA/3/2017 Rage 29 of 87 workshop of Respondent No. 1 on 07.08.2012, the car had covered a mileage of 11,892 Kms which suggests that the Appellant/Complainant was in extensive use of the car from the date of purchase till the mentioned date. The Complainant has tried to give routine repairs and maintenance a colour of manufacturing defect. Reliance is placed on Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Ors., [Ill (2009) CPJ 229(NC)]? and on judgment of this Commission in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Put. Ltd. v. Anuj Gupta & Anr. [FA/258/2022]
25. Appellant has suppressed material facts in Complaint as well as the present Appeal: It is submitted that the Appellant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppression veri. The Appellant has intentionally not attached copy of the invoice issued by Respondent No. 1 with his Complaint because it would have reflected that the car is purchased in the name of commercial entity mentioned hereinabove. It is a well settled principle of law that a person who approaches the Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly & correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. He owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and desist from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising due diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. Reliance is placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. [(1994) 1 SCC 1]; and Tata Motors Ltd. v. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji [(2013) 4 CPJ 444 (NC)],
26. It is also argued that Appellant has intentionally left the subject vehicle with Respondent No. 1 since 07.08.2012. Despite reminders, Appellant has failed to either get the car repaired or take delivery of the car. Hence, the Appellant has abandoned the car, which is not a prudent conduct. Reliance is placed on Manager, Premanchai Motors Put.
FA/3/2017 Page 30 of 87Ltd. and Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Ramdas S/o Shri Khayaliram & Ors. [II (2009) CPJ98 (NC)].
27. IA No. 19602 of 2019 was filed by Respondent No.2 stating that Audi India is not a separate legal entity but a division of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd and Volkswagen Group was operating in India through 3 passenger car entities i.e.(1) Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., ( 2) Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. ( 3) Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd, stating further that Volkswagen group has merged all 3 India entities and the name of newly merged legal entity is Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited. It is further stated that NCLT Mumbai vide its order dated 05.09.2019 has approved the amalmagation of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd and Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd into Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd,, formerly known as Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. It is also argued that in view of merger, this Commission may change the legal entity of respondent no.2. Although this IA was not formally allowed by any subsequent order, taking note of the facts stated in this IA, name of Respondent no.2 and 3 is changed to Skoda Auto Volswagen India Pvt. Ltd.
28. This case was heard on 23.09.2025, 08.01.2026 and finally on 19.02.2026, the arguments from both sides concluded and the judgment was reserved. Order dated 19.02.2026 which captures the rival contentions of the parties and issues involved is reproduced below:
1. Heard counsel for the appellant, OP-1 dealer and OP No. 2 and 3 manufacturer. Arguments concluded today from both sides.
2. At the outset, respondent dealer and manufacturer have raised issues of appellant not being consumer stating that car in question has been bought in the name of the company and in the absence of any averment that it was for the use of director of the Company, it is to be treated as having bought for commercial purpose and hence FA/3/2017 Page 31 of 87 complainant / appellant herein will not be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Both sides have drawn our attention to some of the documents relating to purchase of the car in question. The respondents drew our attention to the sales contracts at page 187 and receipt at page 188 and retail invoice at page 189 to press upon their point that these documents were in the name of the company and hence the vehicle was bought in the name of the Company.
3. Appellant on the other hand drew our attention to receipt at page 303 which is the same document as one produced by the respondent at page 188. The appellant submitted that they have obtained this document from their bank and this receipt is in the name of Gursimran Singh Walia and not in the name of the company but the respondents with a view to mislead this Commission, with a view to press upon their point of car having been purchased in the name of the company have subsequently added the name of the Company on this receipt, which is evident by the bare reading of these two documents together.
Similar is the situation with sales contract, copy of which has been placed at page 304 which shows the customer's name as Gursimran Singh Walia but respondents while placing this document at page 187 added the name of the Company i.e Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. subsequently This sales contract also is also duly attested by the bank like the receipt at page 303. Hence, prima facie, the two documents i.e. receipt no. 2090 dated 03.02.2012 and sales contract dated 03.02.2012 appears to have been tampered with by the respondent dealer for the purpose of placing the same before this Commission. Counsel for the dealer could not give any satisfactory response when specifically questioned about such tampering which is visible prima facie.
4. Counsel for the manufacturer also argued that even if the vehicle was bought in the name of the Company, complaint ought to have been filed in the name of the Company but it has been filed only in the name of Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia. Counsel representing the appellant submitted that Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. is a private company with three directors only at present, namely, Gursimran Singh Walia, his father Kanwaljeet Singh Walia and his wife Ms. Lakhvir Kaur. Hence, only the intimate family members are the 3 directors of this Company. He FA/3/2017 Page 32 of 87 further submitted that he had already filed an application for amendment of the title of the parties vide IA No. 86 of 2017 (page 73-79). He also made a statement ( father of the appellant representing the appellant was also present in person) that they have no objection whether the claim amount is paid either to the Company or to Gursimran Singh Walia.
5. They have also drawn our attention to the earlier order of the State Commission dated 18.03.2013 ( page 401) and judgment dated 29.01.2016 in FA No. 321 of 2003 ( page 418) vide which matter was remanded back to the State Commission for fresh disposal, which ultimately got disposed through the impugned order, now challenged in the present first appeal. Hence counsel for the appellant contended that they are the consumer under the Act, reiterating that filing of the complaint by the complainant may be treated as valid complaint even if retail invoice and temporary registration is in the name of the Company.
6. Both sides were also extensively heard on the merits of the case with respect to the manufacturing defect. The vehicle in question was purchased on 02.02.2012. The vehicle for the first time went to the workshop of OP No. 1-dealer on 16.04.2012.
Thereafter, since 07.08.2012, it is lying in the workshop of OP No. 1 till today and written version of OP No. 1 narrates the various dates when the vehicle has come to their workshop for various purposes ( page 119-155). Appellant has drawn our attention to the Expert Committee report which was constituted ( page 432), although the respondent's counsel stated this report is not comprehensive. Appellant also drew our attention to some of the photographs which have been filed with the permission of the State Commission to indicate that OPs have also broken the link stud just to prove that there was no manufacturing defect. In this regard, they have drawn our attention to the photograph at page 201 where it was intact viz-a-viz photograph taken by them subsequently at page 352 to 354 where it is seen broken.
7. Counsel for the manufacture argued that defects in the car in question for which car came to the workshop on various occasion may be of ordinary nature and do not constitute manufacturing defect and hence manufacturer cannot be held liable. She FA/3/2017 Page 33 of 87 further stated that manufacturer and dealer have worked in principal to principal relationship and hence they are not liable for any action of dealer except when manufacturing defect is proved.
8. After hearing both sides, judgment reserved.
9. Both sides i. e appellant, dealer and manufacturer are directed to file a complete compilation with their updated written notes of arguments keeping in view the oral arguments made today, duly referencing their pleadings, evidence and other documents on record alongwith copies of various judgments they wish to rely upon in support of their contentions ( including the copies which they have already filed in lose form on different occasion). These judgments should be duly indexed and referenced, marking the relevant paras and highlighting the law points they wish to bring out from such judgments. This compilation must be filed by the appellant, OP No.1 dealer and Op No.2 and 3 within a maximum of 10 days from today.
29. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, other evidence /documents placed on record by the parties and other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties, which have been given in the preceding paras. Coming to the first issue of whether the complainant is a Consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether car in question was purchased in the name of complainant Mr. Gursimran Singh or in the name of the company M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. and whether the purchase in question was for commercial purpose. We have gone through relevant documents on record in the light of rival contentions and allegations / counter allegations of parties with respect to tampering of the documents, which have been elaborated in the preceding paras and also captured in the order dated 19.02.2026. In this regard, we would like to reproduce same of the documents in the succeeding paras:
FA/3/2017 Page 34 of 87-
29.1. Certificate dated 09.02.2026 issued by Indian Overseas Bank Indian Overseas Bank Phone No: 0172-2795174 ^11 cifantty! 0172-2795231 Chandigarh Main Branch E-Mail Id : iob0284^ob.in g&r snwo284 , SWIFT Code: IOBAINB8284 SCO 26, Sector 7 IFSC: IOBAOOOD284 Chandigarh - 160019 Kvl. >6/ Dote : 09.02.2026 Io whomsoever it may concern inis 6 to ceisify inot Mr Gursimron Singn WoMBorrower). Kowojil Singh WofofCo Borrower} end I o'<hwir :<oUr wohcfCo Borrower) hod availed fofowing credit facitites with our branch.
$. No. Type of Facility I Sanctioned Present Status of Accounts Amount i Venicle loan tor Rs.Se.CC The loan account no. 028403Z?; 2(XW1 wa;
purchase of low lokh opened on 02.02.2012 and fully rcjxjid on
* wheeler Auai A6 26.02.2015.
2.0 TDI cor
J
we Lt.Tlily that rhe account is closed on 26.02.2015 in our txjokx Infqrcsf dcbil.nij m ac r-'x ■ r was ^s.5,69.988/-from period 02.02.2012 to 26.02.20tS.Sfatemenf of account or: t • i his ccdiLcatc is issued at request of borrower without ony risk of obligation on bank cm <my o' For Indian Qvapf€ i ' Y »• VV (•W 4^ >€> FA/3/2017 Page 35 of 87 29.2 Adv. statement of Indian Overseas Bank Indian Overseas Bank Adv statement ti.**.•> Mun 7 Scheme Gw* U-PUSHP
- «•• <*> 338'0320'MaXB T«e-CUft$HA»NS'\GHWMI^AWAUtl S1HGX .VAl'AIAX>hA.« DaicoHcar 07C7/2012 AMwXti'Mi Toooccconco «*"»■«< -orihcueno ^WiO»C3WQt2ToO>»2rt^H IXX DA I KARKATIOf. Oft Cft i»« 07-0?<?0i? st>2MrU TQMCOOCO rocc ToUfSw Foe . 2O.WOO"^ 4, Byt^c l?8« TOMOOO 2 TOP Ji KH2 J cc <5.7W -J V kiau-yci )3i?revtxwM . «'-/C2W.
■ JV byre
H.XOOO >««.* »
imwi Irvn Fee 25 ?D1? to Mm 28 70'2 22727 0) •*» 1
J>KH ''OP
Sooeeiao : 7 a- wV
OwfcM totemilwt Mux 27 20121»Afx 2«
29V r«
Z' -H.'>v>2 kunw totorejs ftvn 'Mr 27 20 ■? to Apr."8 20*2 ■ 2!,i»5OO» >01J ■' w y
IMJW07 CXX-TMi
Owxttoe morm 'rorr /<< }? top to Vjy m
»P 700 Vi lO OOf J5
Jt- itr. j*/ !,qn IfMww '-Z« *©« 27 2012 » Mey 28 2012 2O.W7CO
« POM
■V 'J.-.-- 2 Owxtto* feMeretf Max 27 2012 to Jun if
ZJV '500 . si «i
.0»2 'W Woreuime V*y2? ?0i2»Ar«2S2Ci2 21.00600 ■ 902 5.*
T'W'-X"? «« S2W< WflW-X! ••4/5Z..-2
/ . 14 OwX* MCrCWlreM Jmi 27 TOP to ?7 TOP 32 00
itoniw ntoreMirem Jun27 20'-2eA4?720'2 20JMPW »» zi'Kiv
M.trzop «. 12*44 50000 CO •Vi- ' '
7.0^ \.P CMmiJvo totoreu fcwn 78 20P to /pg 25 tdu 1800
z$u46Ma'4 'r*o«rtf tojm TOP to Awg 25, TOP 'T»32W Ml Pi •z'.V
OWCW/VP «XC12&*-4
50 wool
fi..' AJI2 Ovdut toK<w ffen /Pg ?6 ?0P to Sep 22
20V 600
■' ' !P MarnM to*M64l fem AuQ 28 20 '2 to &«! 22 J01.' !M?3W st •■?.»/•
us.
•tee i?64< axj jo Pts.
J7'P Q/e«0ue SO 04 -'em Sep 23 TOP toC/Jl • ai P«s/C». . I
P090; o« 3
UM**'
FA/3/2017 Page 36 of 87
29.3. (a) Sales Contract dated 03.02.2012 placed on record by the Appellant/ complainant:
j^j JAY CE'E AUTOMOBI -E** ft') ' v-iiliU 171, InrhntrL'l Art i, r-h'«. I,.
AMdi
SALESCONTIMf )
or 0« f c r f l«p
u-ldniBii '• f<'7>z <
Civ ....
Cisniact Na RcU
>0
■vm L u
-A
>-■■-■< t Vi-oswn c»Cv . € 72f<'ZF'
: •»ci.,>tts' . ^oH
:
Z__ ■/• 4
> -/I>«":*« C-zUuur
' -''-rkr crylyg* :__ZVi-A?C^ . __
^-Ss\a*rrj'r* Pnca _____
'■'M & Logfc^a Owgae :. RS. IODO?-
t or z/^e&o-tas/Fysck^anai/^yrtiurft! Eq'-iBxwnu
1 ___ iCsOt,.__ _____ __ _ ._ . i
V
• 'Cj (Cixie . j
•Ct ___ (Ctrf*................... ...... ............... J
SSBB^ ._.■...^.«r..--../C,', i --<ca>*u_:___
jHH' <6wa„._....... _ .j
a; . ,,i_3£---- ------- -- iCSifa. ■ •' ... : j
-<£44
A;< r-.
■1'
r 7 :
------ • ..' :i.! . i; y ..' :-
'-- ., _■■.
Tl iffi* i J
MMBUbj . 4" ■'.7, /
iSt
.■■Mr WiW««_Ubaji MMvLt'a
z/<rz' '_
J* ®
FA/3/2017 Page 37 of 87
29.3(b) Sales Contract dated 03.02.2012 placed on record by the Respondent .'l ;
'-[O j _• r _-
Audi ■ atasiMisasR's • ■ AMms -------------------------------------
■ /-■ __ ,i c«y St.^- ..■ -.dUL--^ J pan nqJ -i 7 Exterior .±saBassgBfr'<. . g „.■ •'> :'
; .V Ef'^-<g:WWW®WSfiO§^^^3SBiSs: ;'''■ ■'? ■' ■ ■ J ■ -costomor SWlU[p7i U^' .' Doiikria Slgnntuie A J*5*'1 FA/3/2017 Page 38 of 87 29.4(a) Receipt dated 03.02.2012 placed on record by the Appellant / complainant JWCEE MfTOHQA- -- >' r "■' pfcj? No, 171, 2rrflj;et?ki- f■ Ko.
DECEIVED WITH THANKS FROM JbrH<„^(44
-A SUM OF RUPEES I £_£ j jaj./
TT-1 j
C^4407DRAFT NQJGASH.___
SANK X '-. jJR/d/N J
ON ACCOUNT OF O. GF MODEL _
KYP. Uj QI A J- .._ „_ L'-M; OD37 '•
- figL.^4-0 _ r
thsfc £ p«/ nUsr are «t CjgTt&wafoa&in.
ktsvAiu^^in^ey ire isRret1 'in<z-' foe ttsrte.'l affieAre ',t t^mi^rr/ I!:
< ..* FA/3/2017 Page 39 of 87 29.4 (b) Receipt dated 03.02.2012 placed on record by the respondent ■.r?■ /■'-AwMexwK-.X ®-ijewWBliiJw (P) ltd.
No- 2090 •.' r Dated LlJiilSiS,
■ RECEIVED WITH THAfes FRQ^g^W%^g- Q.,.■ Qr y[ ,
* . * . *»•• *•••.•••• • •«' • * I • '
A SUM ORRUreEatfe^^-^Wi^^
A
' BANK DRAWN ON Gvi •
. ON ACCgUN® ' •■OF.MODEL '_________
HYR ^:k BY - VW
- ^-^•:^''/•'r. ; 1 -------------------
l
RS.
&g^mottna*uBx»i»rfoBcw«fll.ami^Lry • •■ • • . -: ■ ■■■: -
.•.- ..•• r.'-r-..;;^:.".-" ?••: • ' ■ ■;::'' ' ' .
idrised Signatory) FA/3/2017 Page 40 of 87 f 29.5. Retail Invoice dated 05.02.2012 placed on record by the Respondent RETAIL INVOICE 1 J«yceeAummobiks Pv t. Ltd.
. Ihirvoit*
Ji b»lf; e54C.3fii;
" -■AJta IM)UN OVERSEAS BANK
Tb
M- tCOMX/OXOO CATERERS PVT LTD
DlREv •'oRyRGURSIMJUNSM^XA
I
>Co.-.
<€£rnp-:i^ ^OfTr.c.ponvr
' " 'A- C\Rh 6 ft Nix
Nttne of Ti uOipoaeT
D^^Throufh
Pa\ V
AABCCSIIIB
I. S I
TlX X.K
{5X
u»r m». OUCIUPTION •■■' IM.
« «5WF Xy
QTY R'fbrnvxnl csuuvaui
I Vv ____ te Rx.
A610TD!
I 3161.3333;
Em GAnr PlMbTrOM BLACK PEARL Wn '.'3 *?
Lit Cclor NWGaTBROWN
' O^asKo WAUZMBIQjcyo^^j
t-ngxncNo CMC 004080
Tvmp Nv amr-o&M
*
total
!
i
M4, tATjcrr < >x?t
C.JUNDIOTAI.
v/Xii ;
- TWiy^dc lacs sixty4cm£ nKXJSAK J OS; Y t.'rt.fs.vi; 4 five* »bove m Mtu-x - ' Nw> k. Junidictwr. < Ch®^^ Coru aih For Jaycee^utontohiks Pm > llrf FA/3/2017 Page 41 of 87 r 29.6. Proforma invoice dated 02.02.2012 Zirinexctjig (Cl jb Audi ii.
PERFOKMA INVOICE FOR ALDI.AG2.0idi DATED: 2"< Feb 2012 Chandigarh MODE OF PAYMENT: 171,Industrial Arts rha-ie-i, i Custcmsr Name:
i Mr.Cor«jmran Singh Walia. RTGSor Demand Drafr Only. Chandigarh-160002.ih i__ landline ->31 1723&ea323 FaeirrJle+9: 272490 2400 i. MODEL :AUDt A6 2.0 ID' CURRENCY- INR 37,70,000.00 Emsrl :nf:^iA'jd:C--?ndigar-..i.-1 ■ COICR : Phantom Blackwith Brown Intcrtcr.
invoic* Value including Sates 7«oc : 37,70.000.00 (Thirty Seven Lacs and seventy Thousand Only.) T»rms& Conditions:
• Prices prevailing at the time cr delivery shall be applicable. • Tali Performs ■■voicetsan estimated landed cost. • AU Payments to be made in favour of M/s JAYCEE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LiD. • This Performs Invoice does not guarantee rhe availability of the vehicle unless it is confirmed by the dealer and asalcscontmet is generated duly accepted andsigned ty the customer.
Jtamcbias (P) ltd. "
landigarh
i ".crtho;r;$eci Signalry
Onager-Safes ,
' i'4'^B7862)7oa
. fl:'"ima^4uf:^ (I p,:
: Imai! jo' ' "
•ijay.rana&aucichandfgarh.in: i- ,
k' ", i
FA/3/2017 Page 42 of 87
29.7. Copy of the Demand Draft dated 02.02.2012 b- on Mo qpt Qh ot MAND Ay | 'V 8 I r| nr 14$ ^fT-rn q? OR ORDER £ 1 Kq^RUPEtS < :o ■7rhj . Pi 'I •X.'.ft'A,/! .Til. WG=r vs 3T«n for value received |B~ Indian Overseas Bank c'PM" '< •'? *UTH a«s» <• 1 't r lb 3 S Nv 't, FA/3/2017 Page 43 of 87 29.8. Motor Insurance Cover note dated :|^/CfC/Clombard K3
-'6 MOTOR INSURANCE COVER NOTE^^ ~6' PO fc ' ' PRIVATE CAR I» 9 I ■. - . c-'"-'•'••'□"-erl traiowi jrvifeMrnawwcros Umvesuc ,. .'. .' • Gf-f 14* ass-a-4 ............c''fl9wise esyapre- far iUcp ir,sburce jig- ;<gy;n:: ■ rhiV -'i*. «••■»• h I-I 1 .•• ; ■tfoctaiatVehre:# !•». v*1nr il ' t ",'~5! Cjlt-c •Sf.irr
--- ------ ------------ : Manulectunng ; ^ae-tv Cc-a-jv !'
-- --r-------
-K-s-W.'aiuetiDV/ ; asmsk-
....... . ................ .................... TvpeotBulsness-.trHqo^ Ron Qv»r =y
.. :-i-/ ■ /<gM.r 'Qi;?:;
I ■'.
I• r .. ..e-cv- 3r en«rl US at tWPW»mfiEg>lcicdpj'ftb^.iliiT.. Vorrrcorrecl at>d complotG address wi-' -e-r .7 -
.^V5.--g2LMgg_0n<Ka) (SeeRule 142(j) oi Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989^ I' ' ■ ' fc~': anfl ^aytpricn of veiTice insures j Is •.• •-•?
'
Wf.cr.c£
J^V.-4^.1
--^CToR- 3S' C
' : :.iip •••hl h |
Ll '
• -. j A' I
V* T' ■ ' - :
='n:
•. • c':t^e<*conww.-»rr£nte.'inswwaio<pw purpose o: ms Act . . _■ _ ,C«y;
! Stotc:
~ ■■ Smalt;
AM/PM 0a:e •' •
■
■
\ ;4!^
;ri
■ ■ ■ _______ 1 Maftghltf: ' -
: Hits > wfwas exiled to :nvo .
: .s-j.-isutsc: •?roxkk'c'inct s' parson driving W/an e^p4r drWjJ&tce at me Ume oi the acsidenl ana is no: asx.t •• ■
- :>•.* aS's-! noWtngan etfactive learners licettu may also emu •Ke'.wiJe and'sudi a poroon satisfies tno reej'-art'-j- -: • ■ - i=-is:5S9 L--...................... ...... ............
-Z_
'.■y
-.2* c< ;no Moist VeNcs ■ ■ s -igse ra-ic' jo ins «evcrso side tor Ifoitatio-ts. _ ' ~
hterfiOxi. . Q8(a
• • --y r-i C-ive- hato eissucd in accoriania «•:>■> :n« '-•'•.-ti-' •'■a <.kto: vehicles Ac;. ig»a.
' tebnteSXeah '
^'Ch^digarh,. < - ^,^±4. ■ U:
- ."r.ER NOTEilS NOTJVALID TfJ CONSIDBSATfCC -eeiNG RECEIVED IN CASH,.
■ wuraflcvcota'Frnv-rts'.vraeni'-i *7;.-'•' • • •>■ ■ < i:» " t ''s•• .■'eapnoir 'rrticocir.
G 'it
fUadOWc*; ICICI Umbsrd Gensrel tniuanea Camsr. : :• =&■• '4.TJ 2v>;rn-<i«-a Cornog. v.«ns* 4<K ■
' 3CtUomt>»rtG»n»»**l»wLr»n««Comp»nvLlmit»d ar : ;< \-t ttl j 401 NrM UnV^ Mye!5
. "f- ■ . Asingte point of coniac; Jet
?'■• "r^'--aoiUtonoticQth'Mriiingvjtnecr -■ ■
5<X',; - s:
zjzrrrz ---
FA/3/2017 Page 44 of 87
29.9. Sale Certificate dated 05.02.2012 4b f i ..... ..
Jayccc Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Form - 21 (Sec Rale-I7(a)&(d)l SALECERTIRCATE b'ulre No JI-12/VQ2S6 Invoice Dsje: 05/02/2012 fo The Reeionnl Transport Officer Ccnificd That Audi A6 2.0 TDI (Brand name of the vehicle) I ias been delivered bv us to Vante & Address of the Buyer COMMONDO CATERERS PVT LTD DIRECTOR MROURSIMRAN SINGH WALIA •SCO.491-492 SECTOR. 35-C CHANDIGARH Hire Purchasc/Leaie Hypothecation: INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OF THE VEHICLE AS UNDER :
. Cla.-sor'Vtfhick LMV/ PASSENGER CAR 2, ''•J.'.kiTS Name Audi India - A Division of Volkswagen Group Sales Ind '• vbasvis Number WAl;IMn4GlCY0Q0753
- i ngutcNufllher CMC iMMHSf) . i i.<s; Ivwer <t Cubic Cdpiioitv W6S CC fc. Fuel Tvp- DIESEL I ' NifHiber al' Cylinder 4 v oik) Year at'manufacture Dec -2011 j Wk. 2011 Sutune Cupt>a<» 5 i • t nicks Moghi IW KC ! 2155 KG (.. ■.,zr. . weght tlMKTOM BLACK I'EAllL EFFECT l Ti oiiwruwU". MULT (TRONIC r saiodn For Jayctc Auhxnubfti'f PvilM
- A [ AuttW)'in<w FA/3/2017 Page 45 of 87 * 29.10. Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 05.02.2012 ■» 4 RS. 100/* FORM C.FtTSa.
tRua 443 (4> of ChondQH* Aden Motor Mefti^eRulw, 1M8) > temporary certificate of rzgistradoh I JAYCEE AUTOMOBILES ' 17f, toduttrial Ahm, PAat*.?, Cfitncfaiffi i FO0 8 CHANDIGARH AWflNSTRAWH Tcmparwy CertSctit of Regweeticn ■ k«u«i by :r a. CKO.
0*X»Kam»a 1 '•94 t OMertptloacfmjdi7 •to7^7 up Type d boa : <Sa^M i --....... ", ............... ~ i ................ ................ .....
Temporary R*a!atnUoo BUrW i; mtanedtottiewiteii ch».t^Z?>Q PUca In which the VeJicto It to be permanent r .
_ . . *
ReQ&etocL
1 ol tesua of Tii
upto the
ForReOtolng&^ieftstTpAutiomy !
I
tT O^Mgarh
FA/3/2017 Page 46 of 87
29.11. Gate Pass dated 05.02.2012
■>
i
C»*» hn !>•« 05-52 20)2
m/s COMMCNDOCATOUMn'T
i-v.t-.-f 5» n-IS/VOMe. lavoxre D«t« 05 _j!2
Mil* A6101Dt Ousxh Ko WAUZSflB4G)CmO7V
Cvw. PHANTOM Bl .ACK PEARi.
CMG 0G4CS0
EFTECT
£< . I
CWv --rf r»
•I
30. A careful perusal of these documents show that car loan from Indian Overseas Bank was taken in the personal name of Mr. Gursimran Singh and not in the name of Company M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. (with Kanwaljeet Singh Walia and Lakhvir Kaur Walia being Co. borrowers). The draft in the name of OP No.1 towards cost of car was got from Indian Overseas Bank with amount remitted by the Complainant Mr. Gursimran Singh, the loan account continued in his personal name till end, when it was closed on 26.02.2015, the initial receipt for this amount was also issued by OP no.1 in the personal name of complainant Mr. Gursimran Singh and Sales Contract was also in the personal name of Complainant Mr. Gursimran Singh. Performa invoice is also in the name of Mr. Gursimran Singh. However, some of the subsequent documents like Retail invoice, sale certificate, insurance cover note, temporary registration certificate etc are in the name of the company M/s Commando Caterers Pv. Ltd. (CCPL). Even when the car had gone to workshop on various FA/3/2017 Page 47 of 87 occasions, the tax invoice is seen issued in the name of CCPL. The name of CCPL has been added subsequently on the receipt dated 03.02.2012 and sales contract dated 03.02.2012 by OP No.1, which OP No.1 claims is as per the oral request of the complainant Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia, although there is no evidence in support of such submission. Name of CCPL having been added subsequently to these two documents in quite evident. Ideally, even if complainant Gursimran Singh Walia made an oral request to change these documents in the name of CCPL, they should have issued fresh receipts and sales contact in the name of CCPL or atleast such additions should have been duly authenticated by the some official who has issued these documents. Moreover, if the sale was to be treated in the name of CCPL, name 'Gursimran Singh Walia' ought to have been struck down from these documents. However, at the same time, complainant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the temporary registration of car was got done in the name of CCPL and not in the name of Gursimran Singh Walia, why he did not object to sale certificate, retail invoice and insurance cover having been issued in the name of CCPL and not in is personal name 'Gursimran Singh'. These were the essential documents / based on which temporary registration was got issued. Temporary Registration Certificate could not have been issued without his signatures on the relevant forms. This means, he wanted all the documentation related to the car to be in the name of CCPL and possibly himself made such a request to OP No.1 dealer. At the same time, he kept his loan account in his personal name, for reasons best known to him. Further, it was admitted that on the expiry of temporary registration on 04.03.2012, permanent registration had not been obtained and car had been driven FA/3/2017 Page 48 of 87 without permanent registration since then. No satisfactory reasons for the same were given. During the hearing on 19.02.2026, it was submitted by the complainant that CCPL is a private limited Company with three directors at present, namely, Gursimran Singh Walia ( complainant), his father Kanwaljeet Singh Walia and his wife Lakhvir Kaur. Hence, only the intimate family members are the three directors of this Company. He further submitted that he had already filed an application for amendment of the title of the parties vide IA No. 86 of 2017. Counsel for the complainant also made a statement on instructions ( father of the Appellant representing the Appellant -Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh was present in person) that they have no objection whether the claim amount is paid either to the Company or to Gursimran Singh Walia. In the present case, assuming for arguments sake, the car was purchased in the name of the Company CCPL, that itself per se does not mean and establish that car was purchased for commercial purposes. The OPs have not been successful in establishing that car was being used for commercial purpose. The Larger Bench of this Commission in Crompton Greaves Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors passed in Consumer Case No. 51 of 2026 decided on July 8, 2016 have held as under:
(a) If a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose, irrespective of whether the goods or services are used solely for the personal purposes of the directors or employees of the company or they are used primarily for the use of the directors or employees of the company and incidentally for the purposes of the company.
(b) The purchase of a car or any other goods or hiring or availing of services by a company for the purposes of the FA/B/2017 Rage 49 of 87 company amount to purchase for a commercial purpose, even if such a car or other goods or such services are incidentally used by the directors or employees of the company for their personal purposes.
31. Hence, in the present case, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on record, we are of the considered view that both Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia and the Company M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. (CCPL) can be treated as joint Appellants and IA No. 86 of 2017 can be allowed and we hereby allow the same and treat both Mr.Gursimran Sigh Walia and CCPL as joint Appellant. We also hold that both the appellant i.e. Gursimran Singh Walia and CCPL satisfy the definition of Consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that car in question has not been bought for commercial purposes. Hence, the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we proceed further with the case on merits.
32. Both sides were extensively heard on 19.02.2026 on the matter of the case with respect to manufacturing defect. The car in question was purchased on 02.02.2012. The car for the first time went to the workshop of OP no.1 dealer on 16.04.2012 i.e. within 2 % months period. Thereafter, since 07.08.2012, it is lying in the workshop of OP No.1 till date. Written version of OP No.1 narrates the various dates when the car has come to their workshop for various purposes. We have perused various documents in this regard, some of which are reproduced below. We have also gone through various photographs placed on record.
FA/3/2017 Page 50 of 8732.1. Repair order dated 17.04.2012 i Jaycec Automobiles Pvt Ltd.
Plot No. ftl7t,lnd). Area
Phase I, 16Q001 Chandigarh
Tel; 0772-3068911-12
dMv'
f-'ax: 0172-4002-100
E/nali:
I iritoOaudlchandigarli.ln
• Repair Ordar r.o
V-SO120073 Repair Order
Na1- rnzi
I Customer Kamo fog No K-CHSBT-OBtM
»-eo<ivnandc Cuteres M, Uw. Polo In k-i7.Apr.i2
I Aadresa VIH i4--WAUZMB4GtCYOOOZlia
: S.CO. *92 3octcr-36C Timo In j | is 40 AM
Date at rtctivorv H-ffl • Jan-12
Charidfiorh Sorvlco Aflvlsor (SA) c^-Kumar. Tarun
KMS In : S.771
CHAJyO'Ga^n OOOOCOI SAMoWlono ; 99:55mjbo
Mobile Nc Colwr Code
Sold 3y Dealer
em.u Acir.-css Modal A6 Sol.TOt 2.0 M 130 ASM
r^s-4t»>rmarw;.illai agmaU.can, Courtesy Veh Morlel :
Cai'tect Parson • Engine No rr-'CMGa
r-r"Mr Guairutfln SlnjU Watfti CointcsyVen. Rep no ;
Contag Persp,, prary. 981.13^3723 'r'sumncc Policy No :
IP Sspirydale ; Ro snovz Status :
Customer Order Descriptlaii
----- ------------Bspandcd R^i'-tCustnmTr~V^l~,'
f .^SEfROMENGiNe -------- --------L ------- V,'Ofl< ,O Dq d°™<Basod urii/n customs Voterf
■2<?>ggK **0 REPORT FOR ABNORMAL NOISS FRog^g----- 3 ' --------------------------------------------
7 e 9 to 12 inventory " ' ____________ TyroConaiuon ~F^7 'iTF" i/2 3/4 F __ l~---- Scatl*________________ Tioaa Oaptn(MM) iOiMwcMamuT"' ~ ■"
-------------- aotyoamags -wi__________ .__________ ; Mcffgto.C£nonpeMhianpa -F/L______________________ jntMalnmem MMirNavc Manya-
152_________ _______________Wa/WtyBc-ck fit ippl) 1 •> .
Direct Reception
,n^- ____________ Quick Re!ctfnzi G-jxje
spare Whaei
r '! '
■OCNotOK
^Wlneow/fflMing
OK Not OK___ Jacxr Too)
OiiLovoi______ _ FtoorMas ..............
,r ^..<
'fr -------- ~ •________ rwiporaadec- Coolant_________ "■ Mua Flaps
i
:■ V, ■■ ;ychu_________ , Windshield Washor -Warning Tifanflts
'Emaust System iSrakes ___ .FirstAioKii-- '
•iUiWejoiy'- 1 j jAMa
'f1 ICQ's
r ;gtX)inaCpmp«rtman< -•
;C>FJil>Q s***« iMcnofliaiTa' ___ 'NocIKoVs"' '
I Yes. No (Wafctiing : Yes tJo , PoBsNng
JOlnor uoano items
Financial Information
Mode or Payment-CASHiCREOtr/DD
. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- eadmaUMCflegR,);____________ 0.W T<UOSB.WII„B1C
estimated Daw delfc/ery (Date Out): 17/04/12
I7/0V12 _________________________ Labour (Rs) (Rs);: _ ------------- '•• - --
I Estimated Delivery Tlrpe (Time Out) : VOO-OOPM
S.OMOPM ■ " ' Parts (Rg) T ' ' o.go '■ -
I 1 5 ramsstrtafyf2snuniaa.-otKcr^isearra>isea
• t jwhe^zo We -epa-rs nr do.wbeu io OsonxMM using nsetsstn- mitariil. I igroa M bo bouna by ino femis s C«w<xis .ij m m 0Vllnt3l
I
Customer Signature
Remarks Ar« . » A*--
u._
I J?
,S-?*Sv
'^ri'.cntouw' 1.^. 7 CiBtoniiiryjifBn ; Vos No r
'ISfr J
FA/3/2017 Page 51 of 87
32.2. Tax Invoice dated 14.05.2012
11 i -
' -'WaL ■
u I
! : ; I ' I
' '-W* '-1: Jaycee Automobiles Pvt, Ltd. •
< PlotNa-ftl'll.indt Area
,Phsst> VtSGOOl CnandiBarti -i
: .[ R>8ft*h;"-;.JXowAowt'-n '!'f
>i •. : F*x No. ' I- " tHWXCOMOC ' p.
e-Md - Wotttuokratojxhin .
7'-X H dij 5 -
Tax Invoice "
•■-' RaswlrOnl.rto . . S012WTS
'■- .YcuibmerKam.Y^'TOOnfficA •''r~ ''Y 'i h-mw-is
W-Mw-Ii r: I/
, YciirtamarAda.: ,; a. NORTE AVENUE. l.evEL-3 ':
■ Rest-Ho. •icHwn£K=3' '
VW j V4>,UZMO<G1CYCO£PM
W- 3 : H t -"'Ki
Kmslii ,,.'i
■ AGSMTOMMsJCJttU -
' <6.771 j Kras Dot «771
;. h'B: SarvIcoAtMtor Tanm Kumir
S. A. Mao. Mx 991SSU4H
-' i h.i
l ■ •
■i
1
-■'! ■ s. -i ?'-.Y ■ ■ • .■' :. ■•<.. .' i'. .• ..'■ :;: : . . ;-:- '■ i :
tfc
\
____ ^g--''-,^*luiwc»*i'irBonf ■'■'-iftteY- ■ ow! ■
-.Ya-: !3<355M0 :
■taoGr:-\..?TO.-.-.ii
--|. Ameun, ;! ■ ■ M0.00~' f.^-- /'mounzirtc ;
TT" 103X0
:' ~ 2'jS«atofertow<>-reMaiM ■ , • »63StOQC ;,; I . ' 11D0 ~~ aeo | ; , ■ j 7,440.00 j siaao ; ~
3.. r^v'.'"l.q;<., ■ • .■:rr,|
r'* i : '-.Ya sasw £3
T!'■ ■ ' '"■^TT-
'-:y; . :■' '. PartsDetarls
1-PartNo.
____________
-M'
j°eery T -oag- ■^UnltPriM _______ _ ■atafttwi-''
-iJdCuatJiMr Il-i f AmMR ? VAT* Amoant VAT Araoun: . iVnomWtncl FSHfefc CVr^^as^^&^'iipAWaaiMMiHtm*! ■ UOAWaMattHW*j «•',^3 _______________ v. %l, - ___ --i8aoo',<: 410.200X0 . 1250 M.JTS.M f •' i TYLSCRkw " .EH 01l28201.-y.~j- j ^IPAO__________ WO.OO !\ "J71J0 ' 12,60.' 4 .aS*! .
5 .s&c:.
> <■ =S_8caF-a "~ SHigH2»5oiag»f.v.a9^^^« l^7CUKife3,^JMli».W ;~ ~^^133XW wl - ■Y1v,'S____ : f »■« ■ ~B.od~ ■ 53W _ 12.60 * 12M ' p' $if ' ~4fl 2 gM^i12W0iy>«-,j..g^^W:»* 1«4.10 |-.' iiaOJO ; 144.10 ■ 12S0 '6.0'.
' ' '6 ^-p481»»8O}^^?^^t.v^117.40^.-- I- 160.00 1 ..
• 117X0 , 1S.S0 • i^OM7roM5oa^B'-F:Cft;»-'rA| >* s "„,v~<im,w ni-i. ;imxo !■«-■_____ 108.96 1£50" __ "ijg __ 2?
Sl.44S.65
.. •'■ •. . :
'3SS5
' •Jf'J^tFOUP'U'a SfVEW/TWOTWOUSANDTWQHUNnREONINETyNINSRUFES ANO ZERO PA1SAONLY 1 i ■'>xT r.1 - r:' w^ry-:' ,; Authorised Signatory • • £>«•'' ■«'a ihjiKtftSiwiqjlW 6 MW 1 ' ■ i' '■'* »-1 s 1 r: • > ■MomeG Ig^ttjri IT'- . . ftY "..• I ft;-! jB^Bfataxy ^4^' ■HKT^ FA/3/2017 Page 52 of 87 32.3. Satisfaction Note dated 14.05.2012 1- & o ■ --^amuii iiutui■ * ?
Phone Na.
ULOX'
ai72-3M«91MZ
Fax No. 4173^002400
E-Mail tnfo(^u<lictiandl5aHUn
Satisfaction Note .
Customer Name ; Commando Catarea Pvt Ltd. Oats : 14 - May • >2
Mr Gursimaran-98142-93736 ' ' RO No. : 30120073
S.CO. 492 Sector-35C Make ; AUDI
Chandigarh Model : A6 Sal.TDl 2.G to 130 k
0000001 CHANDIGARH Regn.No. :CH58T-0e04
VIN : WAUZM^ICWCV-Tx.
Engine Ho : CMGE
This is to certify that my vehicle has been attended at your workshop as per above mentioned details, i hereby confirm that I have taken the test drive of my vehicle and I am satisfied with its performance after repair, I accepl the deliveiy of ths same.
! lurther confirm that t have recieved all ths replaceci Parts / Materials Including accessories (ft any) of my veto's.
Customer Signature Ih Signature of Service Menage?
^Jjjf^T/presentauve of Customer)
Dafe *, .. • Date
. .. • •IR5'""
FA/3/2017 Page 53 of 87
32.4. Repair order dated 07.08.2012
2- (
Jaycea Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Plot So.-f171,lndl Area
Ph»»« 1. isooai Chandigarh
Te<: Ct?2-3U6aS'1-:<
Fax' C172-«MJ2a00
=ma5: htaeairiHiaMSgith-ln Q tiqji a-Ii,..
•'dT- V. C ' , \
Repair Order
. sZ'Ke:*
: O«3T43504 Pattir. : 07-.%g-l4
' Zs-^anocCSBrss^.ue VW : WAUTMJMO1CY00C7S3 Tlmtln : 'OsaoOATA
. SCO.WSKW-aaC Quit ot diilvary : 31 • Jw-« S.rrtat Advlaor l&A): Amdndtr Slug!
t*»ndl9*;h KMSIn : 11*92 SA MoMa Ho. ■. 'jaWK-MSS
CXAKOGAfM SKCCOI CocurCcJ* ; pltewem Black
■SoMBv Dialer :
: '.t'Guw\Man-Wl45-SSnt Modal : A6SalTDIZ0t4130ACM CovrtewVeh Vaf-i ;
: iv^frranwa^fllpMtcjvn EnainoHo. . CMGB CaxtesyVeh P»a<x> :
: 'AGur».iMiao-S0i*2-jB37» imuiariaPcl'iiyNa ■
NoSbow Stitui i . .
. wswsnwCT Jaiw-fora* ; iPEw^ckia ;_________
_____ i\j.:c.<.
Customer Ordar DiucnpUon
: Servioa Tvpe 'e^ab
™_____________ Don'antjed RecairtCustomw i/Jra?
'■Vork ta ha dons O«»ed upon emiumtr Volets A ~VA'C -iCShT o .cia OgCK'AKO REPORTFOT AiRMArtCUGHTON ;C» .• - -- i _______ _ Inventory_____________________ _____ _ __ X. J**_________________ TyroConauin ' Fuel______5.2.'^ .<cKij ~ * Trcatf OaplH (MW O.-n~an ww' _ figr Hl Bodytemapa jpfl ' ■_____________ _Ssi. Seha;u«aanar<« Uan,'/ Vrffcattxi a non OEM klfeigs [Ft. '____________ jlrtoUiitnart w.Hi^p Uarwai '_____ __ ______ :tVRi. ____________________ jwm igr "~~ .____________________iR'l *~ _________ •QuickHs<ar»ne« Gvles ______________ Direct Reception_________ ; Sport Wnaa ' tX.HMOK_______ __ ■ GK Not OK_____________ - Jial Tool Ki'.» b 'v^t -WMowGlaiffo OJLtvtl________ .RowMatt .' IX*7" *' ww Btena iV^ COOUW '_______ 'MunRipe Ughu "t''-'1 WdarmdVJjsha A'AwnnpTiMiyt IV-^ .Brote UntUrtzOy Aide______ _1CE>* Monogram : MOI Kaya iVti'tltFKSEg :i:cw Financial Information Mod. of Payment -CAStVCRH SMI in lied Cocl(rU):
e>li>ri?.ed Da1* c! delivery (Otte Out): . _______ Labour (Rsp._____ EsVmater!t>«iivcryTlm«01meOjt) : Parts (Rs) :
Tam] ildctyeaMuritaie J • rw»c»«««o^»fta'«oiK:*J««*o'cwJ>f't:zr<Ju>nj'acwrvrrj''«'. lagr^rcPaweindfi/aitTamua 5 CuilonxzSI (!*!»»> AI«> (nW . ■ ... "P
--xkJ.:.Itk <L__ hi <12 «T , r-z^r ' .id ,4^ ft-M -QO-rz^-^x,_______ ■w--------- ~ FA/3/2017 Page 54 of 87 r r ^jero ^fc!--:^BEjgssf?^-
" 1 ' U -- • ...MMJ ■kw >*" IM ' --linn '7' ?*.0M *».!>*« ooT""*' ■KX ■* mm ■> <r«i
---- --- - ?£- --Ai^, , *♦ -------- ^-UOMftfhUtAtifthggS^-----
C«L ' ^^S2! _.., '?2Ui5Sr«»_ sw.-------------
-mA-.' f-4ZM* ItU. ... __
UA2il. j^zS^AST-?1^ ' J7" .
i' •i^O
CJ
'^af~^< i<^i
/n^y - ,
tic r^<UU<-%4_ itsC^Z -x/4Md izrxTxir;44^C
* - ** ■
t 4^1
.XaM ^<4az
>T
a ^^Z/VkZSjj .T //* S-^y- cfcuL
•> ,^i
tv* **'*WJIpgLrlJ IM ft.-i a.
^xce/iZuj
T«tet ' «
*? 1? 9 " '--Y-Y
u*.
- „urf 2^ . C*
^2^'S?T7^7'Z^Tc-'2ft7Ts^
:4;*
*^-4/ Amx*<>
i^. . ^Ot /iCy44,(y
Y- ' '' '• -
- *' *-.
*' *- --****»' ~ --------- *2^'
► ■ - - jf
**! *•■«,<
*■ -"*'*»* «,«■
.'/■
...
-"''
ft* «Mm7 *" «u»
* ' » :»• ♦■
Jv'*'t '*••■' ►feft
*wO»-ft'
•WSW
«** MV «M «*«• J-*|
*M«i
1 ' * . t I ••, , f*
FA/3/2017 Page 55 of 87
?ȣ* I of I
/ehfdt data
Vthicle data
BtaM vwwej, io
**♦*»» >>♦•» i'T.t c*«Mtn' «**•
*4*aLT&t?.O mika^m
»**• wxsm *3»«m
a»J-W U
«*»<» :mc» O«ft*wrv <Ut*i
-***» X Mdm Tv»« »»<«,*> M.ntfcM, U>aOoa*
Colour«Ag
Tff* CAtuartMi* ftalm mmMmt
(l»*ni cwfc,
uvu ••Fir ***>- iWI VTM-;
'XeiK'
VO
»• tfev. ». w
Pr nsmbtn
. Sw. MJ.
♦ft.
S4MM* r«**r
^YkCt ^\Ajl r !« »A*. ^J.1^ ^l**'
iV» <XAZ><^J OA.rA*u^«M £M^ln Cft^^
'<«vl 4A,U^ t a u^de* t^uajtaV <tnX it uxff bf
- - ~(.x.-- Wf- 4t& JAe^t 2 £*/**■'
■Ma u>m4^y> fad zsca w
re 4 4/ « ^u-<^
P'&UvUm ktt tKe
AXC4 f&l
OJ£^
iw ^4/ Ifa */
/fa . AW.^ /fa 6$
&rC£j£U<i&,P
z» • / J
v w^>«w 4, • w ->.--~ ^r ■ - » ry
^C4g 4 c?6^n.AA!
<^Ui -Ou? XI mJ. /fa^. 4 ttew: / a ,i 0 t j
/tu Ae^w
"< c/^^kA /fa ^y/f2ac
rcCfy
f1^
/?su4
/?tu^ -------- t fa Azy**^
,
o^oq.loPd.
-, ■ 2:- r-. <
t-:p*>-1 .--i qa-Yw^te!s^!ht'eW«Tbt^)em^*A/riJckD»n.wpx?W-WAUZ FA/3/2017 Page 56 of 87 32.5. Communication dated 20.08.2012 from Opposite Party:
Dfcyagya
I7
Froci; Into
Sent .Monday, August 20,2012 6'49 PM
To: Devagya
Subject: FW: Regarding your Audi A6 (CH 58 T 0504)'
From: inha
Sait: Monday, August 20, 2012 6:47 PM
Tc: Deepak
Subject: FW: Regarding your Audi A6 (CH 58 T 0604) Ds?-r Sir, fyip From: jrfo Sent: Monday, August 20,-2012 6:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: regarding your Audi A6 (CH 58 T 0604) Dear S r, We are shocked to receive your emails dated 9-8-2012 and 16-8-2012.
We wish to reiterate here that you are misunderstanding the warranty terms of the vehida and circumventing thr whole issue in your favor by .distorting the actual facts. Ac the very outset we deny each and every altegadons med< t>y you in the emails under rep*y, as if set out herein as seriatim and specifically denied. All the allegatons are deniet to or jiccnslsient with the actual facts and drcumstances of the present matter are dented explicitty. Theactuai face arc like that.
• . , You phased Audi A6 bearing Chassis No. WAUZMB4G1CY000753, engine No. CMG (04080 from us on 5-2-2012. As:
spedcl & valuable customer, we always provided you our best services at the time of routine services and checkups c your vchfcte.
0 on 16-4-2012, you made a telephonic call to one of our representatfoe-grtotold atoit some unusua ^nuntrixmlbe'v&hide while running. Our representative strongly recommended you to bring tne vehicle to our servict swa&rt to mat we could be able"to diagnose the problem. But Inspite of our advice, you drove rhe veh-cls without payinc c.pv h-,-* and after driving further, you again .called and told that vehicle is making mare sound than wifier. Upon thh oJ representative again requested you not to drive the vehicle further and only then you requested us to took into ths ptobcm. . .
■j y«xrdlrxjly, ergansed for towing down of vehicle to our service station situated ar Industria' Area Phase 1
absolutely free of charge. • •
$ rW diwough check up, we explained that repair will take some Ume and keeping inmindas a valuatfc customer, wi pa's ar. airrngemtM of aftematM courtesy car of the same model for you.
' 4 vd feja was repaired and accordingly we Informed you to take the delivery and return Die alternate ccuitesy car. " town* at w requests you did hoTUteTi* k^ivery'ot the'vehicle on time and afco did not rehiraed the Ju-^audwy cm. finally, you took the delivery of the vehicle on 14-5-2012 alter complete $tit.s(.irtg>n and miumec FA/3/2017 Page 57 of 87 2^(2 „ t-X' ?i.vrv»fe murtesy car. Itjs warth.to mepticn ever here tliat the vehicle v/as repaired under Lie v.?jrran^ policy of
- ^2^jrrran3hctMnavv3sch^edfFomyoufo-.its7epaii. ■ A ■r- ' "it on 3-8-2312,'you again sent the vehfcte to our dealership through your driver and he mads a compla.n: regarding '- P'^hov. m air suspension system of the vehicle. Ou-service advisor informed him that diagnose machine was out erf o'dcf and as sudi we are unable to diagnose your vehicle.- It was further advised to him to leave ths vehxde at our dealership and we will diagnose the vehicle as.dlagnose machine-will become operational soon. Your driver hfonned this fact tc you tolephopically tut you directed him not to leave the vehicle at' the service station. On this your cr.^e.- sought ihc bne for the next appointment and our custorner relatioh representative rnfomied him to come on 7-E-2012 as some tectmlcal expert from Audi India would be visiting c'ur.dealership that day. '. 7. Then again on 6-8-2012, our customer reladcn representative remindec and ccrfirmed to you that Audi India's technical expert would visit our dealership, so please bring the vehicle on 7-8-2D12.
8. 8..Then an7-8-2012, you sent the vehicle in the workshop.for its diagnose and after through checkup we found that the Air Suspension--level sender of your vehicle was broken-due to some externa! impact, "ne photographs of Air Suspension arm of your vehicle which were taken at that point of time bears a red mark which dearly shows that the ai- suspension systarr was damaged due to seme external Impact of biffing with brick. The whole situation was explained to your driver . that such type of damage Is not covered under the warranty policy of the vehicle.
't Ort same day l.e 7.08.2012, you came to our dealership at about 9.00 PM and we explained the facts to you. It was also explained by our technical expert that the air suspensfon ^system was,-damaged due to the external im^ct and-that can ha be repaired under the warranty policy of the company which was being Insisted by you. It .is plsr. relevant to mention here that you purchased the yehide in 'the month of Feb 2012 bearing Temporary registrator mince- CH58T 0604 bur tiS the date the vehicle has not been registered-with die competent authority for the reason oast known- to you.
. Therefore we reiterate that in view of the fads and drcumstances.narrated herein above :he allegatfons made against us baseless and false and we again -reiterate that the the air suspension system of your vehicle Is damaged due to externa! Impact on the vehicle and the repair pf which is beyond toe warranty terms.
- We have been taking aN possible steps to provide you ouf best services always. Your vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defects and 'It Is only damaged due to external impact and the same is subject to repair only, after getting instructions from you. There Is no question rtf replacing the vehicle ps it sans any manufacturing dsfed and it is 'subject© repair onf/.-We have been repeatedly asking you to'Issue necessary instructions to repair the vehicle but you arc defying toe repair as you have failed toget it reglstered'and there may be problem in getting the Insurance Claim so you are leveling 'all false allegations against us to cover up-your mistakes and negligence in this regard- Your demand fa: tcpiacernent of veade Is totally unjustified, baseless and contrary to the actuai facts. It is needless to menton here tha: ; eBber Issue us necessary InstnxtiGns for repair pf the vehlcte or arrange to lift your vehicle from oir deafersni? within 7 ' -dr/s-ffora V* date of this email otherwise we shall be constrained to charge the parking charges § Rs. X* per day Dwyjya'Shatma ■ ' z • [ i j-- z I ;>s! ' . "
P FA/3/2017 Page 58 of 87 • 32.6. Communicated dated 07.09.2012 from the OP:
bb Oevsgya /9}07)eru^ JS From: Devagya ' ■ .
Sent Friday, September 07,2012 7:12 PM ' -
To: [email protected] Subject Regarding your Audi A6 (CH58T 0604) bearing Chassis Mo. WAUZMB4G1CYOOO?'53 Desr Mr. WaHa, Greetings from Audi Chandigarh!!
FTtlher to the communication held an 20th August 2012, we have not received any revert from your end regarding the repair work ta be carried out on your car.
Str, we once agein request you to giva us the approval to repair your vehicle.
|b :f you wish to repudiate the same, we would requestyou to get the vehicle picked up before Saturday (8,!l September Thereafter, as per our policy already communicated toyou, we would be constrained to charge the parking charges @ Rs. 500 per day. Additional maintenance charges will be communicated to you In due course of time.
We solicit your kind understanding on the above matter and look forward to have a positive revert from your end as soon as possible.
Always at yourservicel! • Hcggfijs.
DevagyaShsrma Customer De'lght Manager Audi Chandiflarfi tfi.lFidustrig! Area. Phase-1.
Cnatidisarh 150002 Piionc: *177 30 B3C88 i ax ^724X2400 : Mobile: 451 '3:6044/33 maato- tevaava shaOTaa>au<Scfcandiaarh.in mp.dww* avdrin ■ ■ Audi • VorsprjAQ axchTpehoifc ■ '• '■ Jo'n theA6 TD1 Drive CojiEcscand hixAudl racetrack expertsr>cc.
?AT'i ■-SMS'AudlTOlUo 5303a to partlctpatv.
: i ' ' ■ ■ ■ ■
FA/3/2017 Page 59 of 87
32.7. Repair order dated 17.07.2012
■; I I r
Jaycoe Autqmobllos Pvl. Ud.
Plot Na.i(7f,bH«. AIWI
PiiM<1,16081 CtwMicUD»»h
(MO
Tok OI7^3O5W11-1"
Fm: mTMOOMOG
Em»»: ir>tottaiotoMndl.ja.h.M 6 -IP - 'iS o!>'oy-S3
: FtjpstrOidrf
□olotn t 1/..M-I3
ItoBtio : attST-OW
• H O'CWKr : FCnZ®6 TMW1.< I tor&WAM
WN : W.MMBOGICVOCOTK
isn'O- H»->» aiwleuA<K1..*(I)AJ l.Amili>*.rU»>olt.
pMoidfUvwV ; Jt-Jan-ii
k.5* ; s .x «r s^»csi
; IftAlfi n.MloNloNo '■
KMdtit .
; fiurtam Wsc* S<*ltivI'ojI.'i ' :
a<*NBSARH «WKK''I CoburOx*
l MM'IBf'OU KlOri'M CjwtoovVrii t
HHN4 : '.<C<»lr^'vSa>4Ma?3l> Modal
: (I'M OxiiWtyV«tino<ir« i
- pasmtfertWt «i>nBeAn eiVo.Hx
HoSbewStolui : hV''n'» .
, k'. Cjetawnsi ... IrEwarwaf'oX',fr« :
'wuu'Mrw
„ «HW?3e i? tjjjiycata i ■ .
CuotoniAT CWtr DMwiplwn
--■------------------------------------
to b& UfWft cH^JoniQr V1cqi ............ M. . _____ • cumai led RtTaWCvromw VolccL- repair rotii vou*iag-v|vcii^(>~WOf|W,1<~>_ _____ PK^hwg vaiwe BwsKH w^nvy-KWfftCTOuv • /checkwbREPonrro^awohmalvuiratiowsaMgiiMas_ _ _ , ■J*pxoqMM.'aamna» ^trnwEF ________
-.---
liwcntoiy_______ I
•x Dori - Tyro Cofril'cn •■ Fuel I e"8"!// 7"!
• SJlUl_________ .... .. .....
3)|--ff BatyDlmwo - fifi S.r. S«>»i*Wi>fcii«sa
&___ - Jixtihnoitowian OEM Blit>a« FA. _______ _ h4of*lior>»<ilMM!<NtWo Mani. >! ■-'
' > FjiWaironlyuodi (If>- .
RW
ftl___________ _ Quick noM.aneoCukie
i®:
Dlroct Reception Efron. Wual
& ' X OK HOICK OK| WOK J.cW-luriKH ■
I .■^'
• ? H' X lOdlf.'d I
'ftxtoU_____
- • 0 MKJr<o|N
/.J - < ' J?IS
-"X- ^■•i
'z■ i^zizziz
|txluiiHByxW«r~
UlniWxxl;
lwiiS»»aiJdW.uhot
&«U1_____
■ fa).
W4nit>>ij'lilai>af«
tun Akt" KB
CD-?__________
--
tV'-'
~ |GK|liwC«npoiln'oii . . , iktowixa t.o Ql kun £S I
it'.. (@) 1 , ^y.yrrx
--: as _ . ...........1
Flnonclal intammilon .. X'^V^a'cV.
\\y-M. J>
^loSo otPoMi**! -CASifCJUmW"'-
- c*u. .-. 1-*- " '• '
1- ; -' " ' ■ UUraotodCofcitRo) > _____
_____________ ? timnz , lobuurflU): ____
^.Jwa Ottt d <»hiMy (Drt» Puhi
iSinM«l0rtMixnn»(pn»Dut}j_ __________________ '.-----------;-. - -
*j ' r»«t» ootaij-eo.li i«U«* ii»»
*"Tf-1 mirtMrti»{iiMia*o^y<ttOwW i^ri.&itvtunuryVw l.innoA *'«•
Cu.lonioratgjioi
M«*loo^9
!r
.
--...... I.......... "■■■■
4/ r
' « ' . ""£ ' 1
ClM
;; .. . (
FA/3/2017 Page 60 of 87
• >.c-c1-Or«i* tto, SStKtSXi
J^^ctipUyT^nformaUan ct r-'ark canlsd ouT i - Tji'ne Start ! Time Stop • Hama of Tecrr-.cjg-
-- -- ttj . PqjZ>
r
T
4-
J
Part* Replaced (Pre Aubiorlscd) .
Part Humber Deortpijon Cat internal Parfa Order Qty Ratal Cost
I
_________ Total ■ I- r
0.00 0.00
■^1_______ _ Labour (ProAuthcrlsai)
SyPacsription j. Cat jtabcur Code limeUnlt(TU) ■ Hautsi Labour Sala
4-
+
t
9^
T
I Total • • -o.oa[ 0.00 0.00
Additional Repalra Required
Destriplcn j Parts Labor [Authorlscci j Date & Time of calf
H-
POefi USt, Washlna/AppearanGa Checked . CVS
O/. su?a -0 dj. N/S__ Conuntnis
Intefag_____ | Pofalfrq OtaUrspcit(inmm) mln | acluaf ' mtn actual
Al jobs Ar^idsd EMarforo• PcStHng FiWfpaM I
________ Front tftas r k
F;nd jcipwi'ian
---- Xi RtttPid,
aiplataiJ
-------
iv4 .■ 1 Jyt» Ripon (hmm) lam* tnld cut jruwr mid caT]
[Rm/
_____ :
J;8lgn«lur*ot 8.
Si**^*?^**_______ ___ x Wciluihop Copy Back gltiB
I '
FA/3/2017 Page 61 of 87
32.8. Repair order dated 04.07.2012
-■s.-*- - -■----- -- ---------- Lj_.
■>
i Jaycco Aulotnobilos Pvl. Ltd.
F
.
Pint No. bizj.tncfJ. Area
. Plwan f. 1G0001 Chondlnarti
i Tel: dfZ2:3pca5ti.ie
CES? Lila
\ l-nx: 0172'41)02400 _
Email: h^geaurflchandlgath.ln « 1
i "
• I Fix < D-kvq
■:«op»lrUrti»rffe RepKrOrdor
• :-SOi2M0s
, ;Cu<no«iar Nww . Rog No : CH5BT4MC4 pate tn ; Q4 ju-.,
: Comnatau cots«» Pvi, ij0. :VIN' ' S I !
'iaarot. ; WAU7M04G1CVOOO753 Tima tn "IfeanXX'M
- S.KTKTSSenF'asc---- Date ut oatlvciy . In-Jsr.-iS
. .. CharKkjerl, Son.tcn Advtso-(SA) : r.mnndcr Slnoti.
KMSIti ' f 7.2OO. SA Hobito No. t Oa47705«Ba
, J- 1 ., ••i.tWWOlGARH
W' VfclMI>'OBFSn 1&00G01
Colour C'rte i
.'1 . -s.s. -- • ■ : pfiMtixnatMi : SokfByOaaier ;
'jEWzsM.eji '
• WM8.&3T33
' ' ■~ O'i's'cveniwftii-fgnaiicom
' '
I Modal ■ : AG Snl jraiZOU 53O«M Courtesy Veh. Vocnl ,
Eng^c Mr- : CMGF;
X b'twc'.Vra* . . Courtesy Vu-b Derj nn j
..InscioncePcilcy.K'n -
- No Show Status i
■PSWe ; ______ _
' '- Customer Order Description
Service Type; Huhning nepolz 1
XtORNNO- woaknc 1
.------ ;••■■"• X?-*-.-. --------- -------------
--- -------------------Demanded RennlrfCornomcr Voice) e :
1 : ' ... _.
----- ----------
WgrKJo bo donefBaseti upon customer Voice) ±t' J.'X'
-1- '-" .... 1_... \REPORT FORWORN NOT WORKING J . T:
idvP .......
- «'--'
~.J--
" : f. .. .1.3 : ■ . •
1
?'":7
gj ffeM..._: 3Z
.-- =--:
Inventory ;
d' , , ween
. ■ ~ K ' v .\O «M :• 1 , :- • .• lyrsConuiUan Fuel
■- J. . -. 6 T/A^d/2 3'-'
•T i
it . ■^.■'•_--J-.-. '/)• -
' ..Bocy Da
._ ■■ •.&,7: i»r :;-Jtocy mage /
Damage
11Z
Ml_____
'J;aa£S^S7MMj Owners Manuar
if -Ser Satay M3mieratceM4r.»a>
inioia.ntneni MMt ZNavtq. Manual 7;
3®ViS|ii>aSW ■■ '
t* 7x32^3® zz rr:
' i »-^!' " .-'^'DlrectReception
'Ext Warranty Ooskyfapfuj
, Quick Reference Guide <I
K i
Spare Wheel
lli • ?■ ■
- :!: OK Not OK .__ -.'. . .■
i -'aT.'1 wiMONtiBtoSfl \v>>!r:"®iuiS""
!F '■ £ L OK No! OK
--------- -------- --x- -• -- -- __ _Jac</Too'Kia SwMats Mod Faps j~;-. '- L^**^ MndaWotd W«^ar WarrtonTrian-jie X ■ ... fffeWid;.r!'i IQh'iXiZl/exhtottSytawn .
!'§€'::
?G ^~Er>grie Campartnwftf ' ' T'' ' ~ ^First A-nKd Monograms^ '' 'cl'"
' .-H
^~EngiiB Campartmenif-
iX
Monograms^ Neo'K
l
>r>
*'*.•.v.,
'
ma ;Ya} No No Wstjning . Other Lor.je imim
V ntpoo^nj;
b-
-r j
Finai.cial Inftirmatlon !
.■ ■diOtfe C.OC Jtfaret
/'El;. EMlnrtUdCMtfflsI:
f
.w
Mode '»ym«nt • CASH'CBEOtT/O'J L-r |
apprtcaeM
ItmaiM ij*ie of CMiveiy lOatebu'oh
.... 'i -.rxj'WPM
: d:::. hails : , : - •
Ji.-. . (R9)
ouu
000
' ' 'eirnsm^SrcishtiH'fxsc-menvKeu'raniMci s I ^totint nounnbyirto rszmt £ Ccna-ws 3s zet y. ' o Customer Signature t. E i !x-... .
WSl-p^ipT'r!. 1 FA/3/2017 Page 62 of 87 32.9. Repair order dated 03.08.2012 f Jaycee Automobiles Pvt, Ltd. I Plot No W.Tl.lndl. Area Phase 1. 150001 Chandigarh Tel 0172.3058511 12 CWb Fa k 0172-4002400 Email; 'nloOauoicliandigniii in I Repair Order no Repair Order : SO120MB Re§ No : CMMT.0604 Delo In 03-Aug- 12 Cuetorri.r ronr - Coriutar flo Cotere.) Pvt lij VIH : WAUZMesC.tCYOOC'S tTas-igAM ' ' Adorcss Timo In : 3 CO 092 Sec:or-55C Pale el delivery 1 □J.rJan. 12 Sar.ice Advisor (SAI Amrinder Sing*!. Ctandrporn 4 11.850 \ KUS In SA UoOilo No 0842/064488 Chandigarh oocoooi CmourCode Mobile No : Phantom E'eck Sao Uv Dealer Modul : AU Sal TOI 2 014 130 ABM Couries? ven Moctei : curarnru-rwaiiji {tgrra.i -am Engine No : CMGB oersor Ceunesyveti flcqnc ■ Mr Girrsnnarari. 98142.93736 Insurance Policy Na : 'i Cor'dci Pe-sor. Phone No Show Status : Mrivursirnaran 99i42-93v® iPExpryoaie ; Customer Order Description Service Tyne: Ryftnir.g Rcpitf ■*• • IM ■ I ..................... ..1| . .. , .........................
-Demanded ReoairjCustomer Voice)_________ Work io be done (Based upon customer Voice', MRMFT C LIGHT GLOWS Qt- ICM CHECK ANO REPOAt FOR AIRMATlCUGHT GLOWS ON IC'.' 3 % S <0 12 Inventory X Dem Tyre Condilion ■ Fuel E IM 1/2 3/4
- Scraicn Trtud Deptii(M.«.ti Ownets Manual . KU Betty Damage IRR S«< Sate'Maintwanec Maruai Mooilicalion or non OEM Hlmgs. Fit inlouinir.jrit Mmi> Nang Manual 't , "T?" ,i¥ " E-t Warrarxy Bock II' appl, .. .. _j%____ Quick Ho-'«rehc4 Guoe Smio Woeai t _____ : - . P'r<>c' R.?«Pt-on____ i. OK N«OX OK No: OK Jacc rocl <is U Wmaows/Giazing OH Lever Ftooi Mats I l^^* Wipe: Blancs Coosmi_______________ ... Flaps M-jd l.ighii v/inosmaio Washer :warmng triangle e«nausi System Brines First A.d Kt Unoonxiay Axis l CDs fgR-i- i--Engine Companmam_____ Mowgrams iNa « Keys No Washing : Yes No Polisnmg i Omer loose items.
Financial Information Mode oi Paymenr - C*SH/CREDIT/DO ______________ ______________________________________ 000 Taxes esaophcaotd Estlmeuc Date ol delivery (Date Out):
EstimateC Delivery Time (Time Out) :
....... --. __ _ ___ .._t0bJ!,ur<5":_
Pans(Rs) t ooo
Ferms smenr c.-at urtass rxiwnvrt.
\ - rw-»oy wrmonAe.me Ncwrs as dBiaiboi to ho ecicurnO usrng necessary mvenat 13(ve» io Oe twtxw Or me Farms A ComAaons sa set m■^•wu.y I Customer Signature § Rema-ks Area (saiety related) . .
■ _yX^> cxRx UZaJQzt- . 7U. ot»|X-hA
, Vepe te.
■jj.: 0012.. KAx-.*-
Ctisimirv <Vii" '»> Vv»
FA/3/2017 Page 63 of 87
Repair Oree- No SCrgcsfg_____________
Time Stop Name of Technician Signature
I Dcscr puve tr/crraticn of warx csrrlee sir, Time Start
Parts Replaced (Pre Authorised)
Cost
j Pari Number Decs riplion Cat Jrlerrtal Parts Order Qty Rate
____________ Total___________________ OCX) 0 00
I Labour (Pre Authorised)
Cost
Decsnptior. Cat Labour Cede Time UnllfTU) Hours Labour Rate
-------
:*
Total _ ooc oee 0 oc
Additional Repairs Required
Description Parts Labor Authorised Date- & Time of call
<■-7 !':i.
!
Road test ■ ~ Washmg /Appearance Checked O'S Comments
"'enKe rcocn (m mm) mtn actual mtn actual
■ : . . M JOBS Anenoeo,^riai: . Robsmo iFrontoaos
asyignar^..:~^aX»Tc«aned
iFtontCiscs
instwciion ' x Signature :Rrai Fadi _
Rear Discs
Tyre Repon (in mm) Inner • mid eut inner mid out
■ ■ Front ' .............. ..
ig j-glt |X .' ' Rtar 1
a ■■ tSsg ii' ■ ' Workshop Copy Back Side
p.
FA/3/2017 k
Page 64 of 87
32.10. Tax Invoice dated 03.08.2012
Jaycee Automobiles Pvt.. Ltd.
Plot No. S171.lnd1.Atea
Phase 1,160001 Chandigarh
i
Phono No 0173.3068811.12
VAT R C MO. 34X1003236: VZE F F » No. 0,72-4052400
C.S.T.R.C Ho. : VVEF E-Mail FifogajOchrfr.Cigai' m
Sec F»k No • AAeC-WSTBJSlOC 1
PA'J ■. AABC.SS78J
Copy Tax Invoice
Rrtsair Crdev No. SO120bffi Invoiijj No. Siptacrse
^epai-Qnlar Dale d - Aug -1? Invoice Date 03 -Aug. 12
CustorrerWamo
E.stower ADO.
CanmancioCateies P/l Lie.
MrGunwma.-an. 98'42-93738
3 CO « Stctor-35C
R»gn. Nc.
VIN
Wlcd.'l
Crim-0604 '
VUMJ ZMB 4 G ' C¥0 OCT S3 i
At» Sai "Di 2 0 It 130 AWA
ChsnBipam R.ms In i-.85r; Good svill 0
000001 CHANDIGARH Kna Out ii.esa
Service AJvisoi Amrirstr Shgn
S.A. Moo. Ho. ®42"(B44?8
Demanded Repair (Customer Voice)
1 Alht/A'IC UGHTGLOWS ON ICM
► Labor Details
j ' I r f" '....... ' ~r ----- --
S ! I t Cafe- ) (Disc, i Amount Aites
rra. Deicriptlon [Labor Com Jj gon_J_gate_,______ Qty. , Workshop »_____ Discount
AmotKH incl
• rArj I9SS99900 . I Paid t '6 $0 j 1 j >00 00 ---p-
Total Parts And Labor
Aupees'
FA/3/2017 Page 65 of 87
32.11.Report of Expert Committee of PEC Universoty of Technical Education dated 30.05.2016 f. n M C, !
-<;VV.v ' r Di T '...pi- ..,d ■ I pA'i N<> A :-c< u?r J" i'.
v, •> -rCAtriv r(j < t,:;. 1 ' A Mi
5ul)jC'it
3 0 MAY 20!f
1' Xpert OpMion
---- ' in €C No. AG vl Hdr-ti ns Gufj-insran .'.inRh Walin Vi layccc:.
Autoivobik"- Pvt. Ltd
',j. ••• . A. : _ i
■ deference h> the letici no. SC CP-JOiU/ dMirc! 13.03.2016 of the Hnr.'htc State Consumer z'
Kt'.jressal Cotnniis^G.-i, Clbwidi^fh ,v,d our lettn; ■m. KlC/'Mu^l 1.193 - 205 dated n9.0S.201K it-.r committee visited the Workshop al orj^Ab-^A jjYlce 'x'?t9H'a.b?e5 pnv'ltl! LimitwA 4UW' a / Shov.- ■ '•bidon, GJ Ko.ul, nn 2fi.05.2C16 at 10.00 A.M.. ■- ■ ■_ '--i h.r'nscecl'on/chcCki'if. r.f lr.2 CA'Xj'Jrn.
SH vf «.. W^remj^WM.., Sb. Vto.
Chtei A"^nz«l ■ .
Tl* v.iRdi
„ n.K™wir- J/.
.>> - T^:.p:i0.1. iEnstnc ,xp.. CMO^0?0 CM-Shiw WAOiMrli->:CYS5^nrei^(nr?«P«U:W. zhe ^.ple in Quesbon v«sjnspectoL ■, , . J.'-on the G<lorn?.tef,v.'3S....:>,; .'i i '.e'* '.e''- •• ' 'A 'li' 'A '' " ~ "' - •• -■•?•.
'■ ■ J § and discu^bpswitMhopt
"MMrlne Weuinn. n ^ountl U.M^ .p5^pf^g-nd.in the y .'rtF' l-nn n««h •' V. ...U< --.t--- rl a (,c^ ,/-,h|{ (|> is yeryjKiiistnil -Hi.-i not desiMbkt. ■ IH^jd in i!:e A' su^cnbiun systtim ■.vn s^muHbe '»* be .prtjblem .in. ttMUVfikiple <'ri'ccm iMttne ''y* __ , ,> ? --
-------- ; ' 'TaFtcrihe n-AAfement^Uho^^box assembly and also the C! '■'i i ' - •1 - '': - i ' ' r''1 1 - ' f'.- r~ p«i>«w>e,5'ii!s,-i,s! ■v,''"ri'' ":utt !'W1: ''t,"":
■ {n'rret'
i -0/ I]
P :
:-------
|||Fs!?Fgop al Du'/aJ ^B^W^r'y-p'Sinshl ■'■ .
; i (0;
ri:- ►'.;•»■. '*•'-.'^Mechanical Engg. Deptt. 7 . •■ ■■' ' jH'^UniveraitYofTech-.CluL FA/3/2017 Page 66 of 87
33. Main issues for consideration
(a) Whether the car in question suffered from any 'defect' as defined u/s 2(1 )(f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and whether the same has been established by the Complainant with adequate, reliable and cogent evidence on record.
(b) Whether the car in question had any 'Manufacturing defect' and whether the same has been established by the Complainant with adequate, reliable and cogent evidence on record.
(c) Whether an expert opinion u/s 13(1 )(c ) of the Act is mandatory to establish a defect and/or manufacturing defect in the car.
(d) Whether OP-1 (dealer) and/or OP-2 (manufacturer) is/are liable to replace the car or refund the full value of the car suffering from 'defect' as defined u/s 2(1 )(f) of the Act or 'manufacturing defect'.
(e) Whether OP-1 (dealer) and/or OP-2 (manufacturer) have rendered any 'service' as defined u/s 2(1 )(o) of the Act to the Complainant.
(f) Whether OP-1 (dealer) and/or OP-2 (manufacturer) is/are guilty of deficiency in service as defined u/s 2(1 )(g) of the Act.
(g) Whether Complainant is entitled to replacement of car or refund of full value of car and/or any compensation on account of 'defect' /manufacturing defect/deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from OP-1 and/or OP-2, if yes, quantum of such compensation.
34. As all the above stated issues are connected, these are taken up together. However, before we take up these issues based on the facts and circumstances of the present case and rival contentions of the parties, we consider it necessary to refer to the relevant provisions the Act and some of the case laws on the subject.FA/3/2017 Page 67 of 87
34.1. Definitions of some of the terms under Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(c y'complainf means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that--
(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;
(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects;
(Hi) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;
xxxx
(d)"consumer" means any person who,--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose"
does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and FA/3/2017 Page 68 of 87 services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any [aw for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
(i) "goods" means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930;
(j) "manufacturer" means a person who--
(i) makes or manufactures any goods or parts thereof; or
(ii) does not make or manufacture any goods but assembles parts thereof made or manufactured by others; or (Hi) puts or causes to be put his own mark on any goods made or manufactured by any other manufacturer;
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
(q)"trader" in relation to any goods means a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof;
(r)"unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:--
(1)the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which --FA/3/2017 Page 69 of 87
(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
xxxx
(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof:
Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence;
(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be--
(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services; or
(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out;
xxxx"
Sale of Goods Act 1930 define 'goods' as follows:
"goods" means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;
13. Procedure on admission of complaint.-- (1)The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,--
xxxx
(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such FA/3/2017 , Page 70 of 87 laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;
xxxx
14. Finding of the District Forum.--
(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:--
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:
Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;
(e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question;
(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat them;
(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;
(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
(ha) to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;FA/3/2017 Page 71 of 87
(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently:
Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent, of the value of such defective goods sold or services provided, as the case may be, to such consumers:
Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed; (he) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement;
(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.
xxxx 34.2 A bare perusal of the definition of word 'defect' (which is a definition for all kinds of goods, which includes the automobiles/cars, under Section 2(1) (d), as reproduced above, shows that any kind of 'fault' or 'imperfection' or 'shortcoming' in the 'quality', 'quantity', potency', 'purity' or 'standard', which is 'required to be maintained', 'by or under any law' or 'under any contract', 'express or implied' or 'as claimed by the trader in any manner, whatsoever constitutes 'defect'. The Act does not define the term 'manufacturing defect' or any other specific kind/type of defect, it only defines 'defect'.
(a) In Maruti Udyog Limited v. Hasmukh Lakshmichand, 2009 SCC Online NCDRC 74, this Commission observed as follows:
"Manufacturing defect" as per P Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexion, 3rd Edition, Volume 3, 2005, defines to mean as:-
"An unintended aspect of finished product due to error or omission in assembly or manufacture, that causes injury."
Business Dictionaiy.com defines it to mean:-
FA/3/2017 Page 72 of 87"Frailty or shortcoming in a product resulting from a departure from its design specifications during production. "
xxxx The "manufacturing defect" is much more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defective part. Manufacturing defect is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing a machinery. To prove such a defect, opinion of an Expert is necessary...
(b) In Nuzhat v. Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Another RP No. 1053/2016, decided on 03.12.2019, (2019 SCC Online NCDRC 1691), this Commission observed:
"Manufacturing defect is a defect which persistently comes up and cannot be rectified even after attempts made by the dealer. The Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition (Indian Edition)- definition of defect is as under:
'Shortcoming' imperfection or lack'
(c) In M/s Hyundai Motors Indi Ltd. Vs. M/s Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. RP No. 1053/2016, decided on 03.12.2019, ( 2019 SCC Online NCDRC 1691), this Commission observed:
"In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, maybe a luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. That the defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new car. That loss of satisfaction would be much more in a case when the person buys the vehicle with his hard-earned money. "
(d) in Anand Kumar Bansal V. Premier Ltd. RP No. 2816/2015 (2019 SCC Online NCDRC 1048), this Commission observed:
FA/3/2O17 Page 73 of 87"15 Since 'defect' means any imperfection or shortcoming and 'manufacturing defect' is a shortcoming in a product resulting from departure from its design and is dangerous than the consumer expects the product to be, we are of the considered view that stoppage of engine and replacement of the same twice during the first year squarely falls within the definition of 'defect' and 'manufacturing defect............. "
34.3 Section14 of the Act empowers the commission to allow various reliefs, including the replacement of the goods with new goods of the similar description (car in the present case), return (refund) of the price paid by the Complainant, award of compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the OP, if the Commission comes to a finding that the goods in question suffered from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved. Act also empowers the Commission to award punitive damages if the circumstances so warrant. Of course, the exact nature of relief from amongst those listed u/s 14 of the Act and/or quantum of compensation and punitive damages etc. will depend on facts and circumstances of the case.
34.4 Under the provisions of the Act, any good, like the car in the present case, can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded if it suffers from any 'defect' as defined in the Act. It is not necessary that for ordering a replacement of good or refund of its cost, the good (car) must suffer from any 'manufacturing defect'. There is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect under the Act, which only defines the 'defect'. Of course, even if the defect in a good/car is established, it does not necessarily have to result in directions of replacement of good/car or refund of its cost. Exact nature of relief to be granted would depend on facts and circumstances of the case. Further the provisions of the Act with respect to powers of FA/3/2017 Page 74 of 87 Commission to order replacement of car or refund will have overriding effect over the terms & conditions of the warranty.
34.5. Whenever a manufacturer/Dealer of a vehicle offers to sell a brand new vehicle to the consumer, there is an implied contract as to the claim of the manufacturer/dealer that the vehicle being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained. In Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar (2022 SCC Online SC 482), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed " Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 and they carry implied conditions as to their fitness. That is a statutory mandate and that mandate also operates in respect of goods, whose defect is subject of proceedings in a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.... "
34.6 How does a purchaser of a new vehicle, who is neither an expert in automobile Engineering, nor expected to be so, perceive a manufacturing defect or a defect in the car? Whenever a person purchases a new vehicle, be it a low end vehicle or a middle end vehicle or a high end vehicle, depending upon his economic status/affording capacity, has great sentimental/emotional values attached to such purchase/acquisition of new vehicle. Even an unwanted small scratch or damage to the vehicle in the initial period of such purchase upsets not only the purchaser of such vehicle but his family members as well. If such a vehicle start giving troubles/manifesting mechanical or other technical issues right from the beginning, calling for its repeated visits to the workshop for servicing/repairs etc., such occurrences itself disturbs the peace of mind of such purchaser and cause mental agony to him and his family. It is natural for such a Complainant to think that a vehicle giving repeated troubles, requiring repeated visits to the FA/3/2017 Page 75 of 87 workshop, suffers from some kind of serious defects, which he tend to classify as 'manufacturing defect', although in all such cases, the defects though being there, may not strictly speaking be 'manufacturing defect'. In the context of airbags not deployed in an accident, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shailendra Bhatnagar (2022) SCO Online SC 483), observed " A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collusion of the theories based on velocity and force......"
34.7 In cases involves allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it is typical on the part of manufacture and/or dealer to take the plea that the vehicle suffered damage due to the negligent handling of the vehicle by the purchaser/complainant and the alleged issues are only due to operational/usage reasons, there is lack of proper maintenance etc. The standard defence taken by Manufacturers/Dealers in such cases where manufacturing defect is alleged and replacement is sought is that vehicle is sold under a warranty for a certain specified period from the date of purchase or until vehicle runs for a certain kms., whichever is earlier and that warranty is made subject to certain terms and conditions, qualifications and limitations as set out in the warranty booklet and that as per warranty, the manufacturers/dealers obligation is limited to repair or replace the defective components at its sole discretion during the warranty period if the manufacturer/dealer acknowledge that such defect(s) is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacturer.
34.8 Further, in cases involving automobiles, it is typical on the part of manufacturer to plead Principal to Principal relationship rather than Principal to Agent relationship with a view to avoid its liability for any wrongful acts of their authorized dealer. The issue of Manufacturer- Dealer relationship came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr.
FA/3/2017 v Page 76 of 87(Civil Appeal No. 574/2021 decided on 18.02.2021). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of dealership agreement, held that the relationship between manufacturer-dealer was that of Principal to Principal and not that of Principal to Agent. In the present case, the OP-2 (manufacturer) stated that they work on Principal to Principal basis. In a Principal to Agent relationship, the Principal is responsible for wrong doings of his agent/acts done on behalf of the Principal. However, in a Principal to Principal relationship, which is generally entered into by car manufacturers with their, authorized dealers under some kind of a dealership agreement, while the Principal (Manufacturer) may not be responsible for the wrong doings/acts of negligence of the Principal (Dealer), it surely is responsible for the warranties it has given with respect to removing any defects or replacement of parts or replacement of car itself in case of manufacturing defect(s), as long as conditions of warranties have been observed/complied with. Even if the relationship between manufacturer and dealer of a car is' that of Principal to Principal, the manufacturer can only resist/avoid his responsibility/his liabilities for wrong doings/acts of omissions and commissions of dealer, but for warranties offered to the customer during the warranty period, and subject to due compliance of terms of such warranties by the customer, both the manufacturer and dealer are liable for repairs/replacement of any parts or replacement of car itself, if the terms of warranty so provide for. Dealer alone cannot be made to bear the liabilities for repair/replacement of parts and/or replacement of car on account of manufacturing defect during the warranty period even in a Principal to Principal relationship.
34.9 In a Principal to Principal relationship, both the manufacturer and authorized dealer are independent legal entities, dealer buys the car from the manufacturer and then resells them to customers, the dealer owns the inventory once it is purchased. In a Principal to Agent relationship, authorized dealer act as an agent of manufacturer, the FA/3/2017 Page 77 of 87 dealer sells cars on behalf of the manufacturer. In this case, within the scope of authority, the manufacturer is liable for the acts of the dealer. In a Principal to Principal relationship, although it is the dealer who sells the car, manufacturer can also be held liable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, especially for manufacturing defects and product liability clauses. Moreover, the customer/purchasers while purchasing a car, never comes into direct contact with the manufacturer and has to buy such cars only from an authorized dealer of the manufacturer. No one other than the authorized dealer of the manufacturer can sell such car and/or repair/service such cars during the warranty period. However, the customer/purchaser goes by the reputation of the manufacturer while deciding to buy a particular car based on various features, specifications, warrantees etc. advertised by the manufacturer in one way or the other. Hence, in our considered view, in a situation of Principal to Principal relationship, the manufacturer of a car cannot escape its liability for a defective car or a car having some serious defects. In Tata Motors Vs. Pradipta Kundu & Anr. , RP 2133 of 2015 decided on 02.03.2020, National Commission held that for a defective car, even though the car was sold by an authorized dealer, the manufacturer cannot escape liability.
34.10 As regards requirement or need for a laboratory test/expert opinion to determine whether the good/car suffers from any 'defect', in particular a manufacturing defect', a bare perusal of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) reproduced above shows that such a laboratory test and/or expert opinion is required only when 'where the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods', it is not mandatory in all cases where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods. This Commission has taken such a view in many cases. In M/s. Kataria Automobiles versus Prabodhkant Damodaras Pandya, RP No. 3916 of 2008, decided on 21.09.2021, this Commission observed:
FA/3/2017 Page 78 of 87"8. In the light of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) was not required in this case, and, as such, this "omission", as argued by the learned counsel for the Dealer, is not fatal to the case of the Complainant................. "
The Dealer received the sale price. It was responsible for satisfactorily repairing the vehicle. Determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to
(g) of the Act 1986 was not required in this case. As such there was no need to implead the Manufacturer as a necessary party before the District Commission. In any case ........."
In Hind Motor (I) Ltd. Vs. Lakhbir Singh, RP No. 2790 of 2008 along with RP 4345 of 2008, decided on 02.12.2013 (2013 SCC Online NCDRC 1033), this Commission observed:
"19. Furthermore, within eight months of selling of the vehicle, as per petitioners' own case, it required substantial repairs worth Rs.2.25 lakh. This itself goes on to show that there were inherent defects in the vehicle, that is, why it required substantial repairs. Under such circumstances, no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that major repairs were required just after short span of eight months from the date of the sale of the vehicle."
In Tata Motors Vs. Navin Nishchal & Anr., RP No. 2207 of 2007, decided on 07.08.2012, this Commission observed:
10. From this, it is clear that reference to an appropriate laboratory (or, expert) for determination of defects in goods is not entirely mandatory. In this case, based on the admitted evidence that the FA/3/2017 Page 79 of 87 complainant was required to take his newly purchased car to the workshops of the opposite parties repeatedly practically every month the District Forum specifically observed- Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that there is no expert opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In our view no expert opinion is required in the circumstances of the case as noted above. The vehicle did not run smoothly even for a month and within two months of the purchase it was taken to the workshop of the OPs with complaints of high consumption oil and in less than four months started emitting excessive smoke. The car had to be taken to the workshop of the OPs almost every month with one problem or the other and one problem, which continued persisting is high consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke impels us to the inference that there is some manufacturing defect which is beyond rectification.
In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. Vs. Meghna Corporate Ltd., RP No. 589 of 2020 decided on 24.06.2020 (2020) SCC OnLine NCDRC 910), this Commission observed:
"10. It is argued that there is no compliance by the District Forum of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 13(1)(c) is reproduced as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint. -- (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,--
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FA/3/2017 Page 80 of 87
(c) where the complaint alleges a detect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it m the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty- five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.
11. From the bare reading of this provision, it is apparent that the District Forum is required to obtain the expert opinion only when it is of the opinion that the defects as mentioned in the Complaint could not be ascertained without proper analysis or test of the goods. In the present case, there were 25 job cards showing the repair and replacement of various parts of the car, which were based on evidences on record filed by the Complainant along with its Complaint and were sufficient for the District Forum to determine the nature of the defects in the vehicle. The Petitioner after receiving the notice of the Complaint, wherein the Complainant had alleged that there were defects in the car, had the opportunity to move an appropriate application for obtaining the expert opinion to contradict the allegations of the Complainant. That opportunity was not seized by the Petitioner. In fact, not even a single piece of evidence has been produced by the Petitioner to contradict the contentions of the Complainant/Respondent no.1. Non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act therefore it not fatal to this case. The findings on which the Petitioner has relied upon were given on the facts and circumstances of those cases and the facts and circumstances of FA/3/2017 v Page 81 of 87 this case are entirely different. It is apparent that within a span of /2 years till the filing of the Complaint, the vehicle which was new 31 had to be taken for repairs to the repairing centre of Respondent no.2 for 25 times. This itself shows that the goods supplied were defective. "
Hence, we hold that laboratory test and/or expert opinion to determine/establish a defect and/or manufacturing defect in a good/car, as prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) is not mandatory in each and every case, its requirement is case/fact specific. If there is other reliable, cogent and sufficient evidence on record, it is not necessary to have a laboratory test report and/or an expert opinion.
35. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the car in question faced many mechanical and technical problems within a span of about 2 1/2 months from its purchase. . If such a high end car gives such troubles in such a short period, it is natural for the purchaser of such a car to think / allege that such a car suffers from such kind of defects of serious nature, even if strictly speaking not manufacturing defects, are naturally assumed to be so by the purchaser of such vehicle, who is not a technical person having sound knowledge of all aspects of automobiles. Even frequent occurrence of such defects and / or frequent visits of car to the workshops are signs of such vehicle having some serious or inherent or manufacturing defects. In the present case, the expert Committee of Mechanical Engineering Department, PEC University of Technical headed by Dr. V.P.Singh, Professor have also observed that in its opinion, there was sound / vibration problem in the vehicle from the very beginning and continued even after the replacement of the gear box assembly and also the suspension system of the vehicle was not working properly, stating FA/3/2017 Page 82 of 87 further that it appears that vehicle must have some inherent defects. The inspection by the Committee was done on 26.05.2016 at the workshop of OP No.1 in the presence of representatives of the parties. Further, as on this date, as the car was not roadworthy, it was not test driven, the reading at the time of inspection was 11906 kms. The Committee also observed that replacement of gear box assembly of a new vehicle is very unusual and not desirable. The Committee also found that link / stud in the air suspension was found to be broken and because of this, the suspension system in the vehicle might not be working properly.
36. The car, after its purchase on 02.02.2016, first time gave trouble on 16.04.206 i.e. after about 2 1/2 months, and was taken to the workshop of OP no.1 Repair order dated 17.04.2012 lists demanded repair ( customer voice) as ' abnormal noise from Engine'. This car remained in the workshop of OP No.1 for about one month and was given back on 14.05.2012. During this period, complaint was provided a temporary vehicle of similar model. The vehicle was also taken to the workshop of OP No.1 during June 2012. Repair order dated 04.06.2012 indicates demanded repair ( customer voice) 'horn not working'. Again during July 2012, the vehicle was in the workshop. Repair order dated 17.07.2012 indicates - demanded repair (customer voice) as :
(i) steering volume switch not working properly,
(ii) Abnormal vibration sometimes.
Again during August 2012, vehicle was in the workshop. Repair order dated 07.08.2012 indicates demanded repair ( customer voice) ' Airmatic light on ICM. This car is still lying in the workshop FA/3/2017 Page 83 of 87 of OP since No. 07.08.2012 i.e. for the last more than 13 years. Obviously, now, the car has become non usable and possibly will have scrap value only. Communication dated 20.08.2012 from OP no.1 confirms the incident of 16.04.2012. It also states that the vehicle was repaired under warranty policy of manufacturer and nothing was charged from the complainant for repairs. The OP No.1 admits the fact of vehicle having gone to the workshop on 03.08.2012. and diagnostic machine being out of order on this date, stating further that on 07.08.2012, after thorough checkup, they found that the air suspension - level sender of the vehicle was broken due to some external impact, stating further that 'the photographs of the air suspension arm of your vehicle which were taken at that point of time bears a red mark which clearly shows that air suspension system was damaged due to some externai impact of hitting with brick ....that such type of damage is not covered under the warranty policy of the vehicle ....your vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defects and it is damaged only due to external impact and same is subject to repair only after getting instructions from you'. Similar stand of damage being due to external impact has been taken by OP No.1 in their written version. However, the complainant contested such a version of OP No.1 stating that it has been concocted. In support of his contention, the complainant has referred to photographs at Annexure -15 dated 01.11.2012 placed on record by OP No.1 alongwith written version on 23.11.2012, contending that as per these photographs link /stud in the air suspension system is fully intact. It is alleged by the complainant that OP no.1 broke the link / stud before the inspection of the vehicle by the expert team to be held on 26.05.2016 in order to justify their defence. The stand of OP No.1 was that link /stud was broken when the car was brought FA/3/2017 Page 84 of 87 to OP on 07.08.2012 ( which is stated in the communication dated 20.08.2012 of the OP). However, complainant contends that link /stud was intact as per photographs filed by OP No.1 vide annexure R-15 dated 01.11.2012, then how it is possible that link /stud was broken on 07.08.2012.
37. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the ■ case, we hold that car in question, a high end car, developed certain serious defects within a very short period of its purchase, implying some inherent defects in car due to which complainant could use this car just for few months only. Frequent visits to the workshop reinforces such observations. However, in the absence of any categorical finding of the expert committee about the nature and extent of such alleged defects and / or any other reliable evidence, which would establish beyond reasonable doubt that such defects were in the nature of manufacturing defects, we hold that complainant is only entitled to compensation for having been supplied with such a defective car by OPs and for deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, but he is not entitled to replacement of the car in question with a new car of the similar model or full refund of price paid for the car. The car had run about 11900 kms till 07.08.2012, date since when it is lying unutilized at the workshop of OP No.1. Hence, considering the depreciated value of the car for its usage till 07.08.2012 and other relevant factors, we are of the considered view that ends of justice will be met for both sides by granting a compensation equal to 50% of the original price of the car as on date of date of purchase i.e. Rs. 18,34,500/- ( 50% of Rs.36,69,000/-- the price of car as per invoice dated 05.02.2012) alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 07.08.2012 ( date since when car is lying with OP No.1) till the date of payment by the OPs. Further, OPs shall be entitled to retain the car in FA/3/2017 Page 85 of 87 question, which is already lying with OP no.1, and recover its salvage value or use it in any manner whatsoever, they so desire, after repair / making it road worthy. As we have held that a 'defective good' (car) has been supplied, hence both the manufacturer and dealer are liable. Further, the dealer is also guilty of 'deficiency in service'. Hence, we hold both OP No.1 (dealer) and OP no.2 and 3 (manufacturer) now known as Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. liable jointly and severally. Hence, we direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 18,34,500 along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 07.08.2012 till the date of actual payment as compensation to the complainant.
38. All payments as per this order shall be paid within a maximum of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which total amount payable at the end of 45 days as per this order shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the expiry of 45 days till the date of actual payment.
39. The amount shall be paid by OPs in the name of Complainant No.1 Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia, subject to Complainant No.2 Company passing a resolution stating that it has no objection in Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia receiving the amount in his name as per this order. Copy of this resolution shall be submitted to OPs within two weeks from date of this order.
40. FA No. 03 of 2017 stand disposed off with above stated directions.
41. Parties to bear their respective costs.
FA/3/2017 Page 86 of 87I
42. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed oft.
Sd/-
(DR. INDERJIT SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
Am/CAV ( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER
1 ;
FA/3/2017 Page 87 of 87