Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Problem in M/S. Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Raj Kumar Ahnihotri & Anr. on 25 July, 2016Matching Fragments
2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant purchased an Audi Q5 2.0 TDI QUAI IBIS vide Invoice No.11-12-V032, dated 31.08.2011, at a price of ₹ 40,43,000/-, from the first Opposite Party. It is averred that immediately after purchase, the complainant noticed a continuous sound problem/ noise from the front side of the wheel during the application of the breaks. It is pleaded that despite several visits, the first Opposite Party miserably failed to rectify the said problem.
3. On 04.01.2012, the first Opposite Party retained the car in its workshop till 14.01.2012 and informed the Complainant that necessary parts have been changed and now, the front wheel would be sound-free. It is averred that the car had run only 5005 kms as on that date and even after the delivery of the car, the complainant faced the same problem and he had no other alternative but to approach the first Opposite Party again, which had retained the car and did the tyre rotation. Again, on 27.11.2012 and on 06.06.2013, when the car had driven 11,736 kms and 15,221 kms, respectively, the car was once again taken for rectifying the same defect, but in vain. The complainant submitted that on 04.02.2014, the car was taken to the first Opposite Party to set right the same problem, but it refused to rectify the same, unless the complainant had paid a sum of ₹ 44,300.68ps.
4. Aggrieved by the demands of the first Opposite Party, the complainant had written a number of emails to the first Opposite Party and Audi India, the second Opposite Party, explaining the problem in detail and stating that it is a manufacturing defect. As both the Opposite Parties had miserably failed to rectify the defect of repeated and continuous noise, he got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 31.03.2014 for either replacing the said defect of the car or refunding the entire amount of the car, i.e., ₹ 40,43,000/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a., from 31.08.2011, till realisation, compensation of ₹ 10,00,000/- and costs of ₹ 50,000/-.
6. The Second Opposite Party filed its Written Version with a preliminary objection that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs as it is only a frivolous attempt to allege manufacturing defect and also that the State Commission did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Office of the second Opposite Party is situated outside the jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is further averred that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the OP No.1 on 04.01.2012 and the vehicle reported accidental damages and repairs on 05.12.2011 and the Dealer had brought this to the notice of the complainant that said noise was attended to and even benefits of warranty period were given to the complainant. Damage to the breaks and break-pads are clearly attributable to the usage of the same. The problem was reported after an average interval of 4000 kms which shows that the vehicle was used and no mechanical or manufacturing defect could be attributed to it. When the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 04.02.2014, other problems like fuel lid not locking, sun visor lock broken due to external impact, etc., were informed and then this complaint about the noise in the breaks was made. Twice, the vehicle had reported for accidental damages, i.e., on 05.12.2011 and 16.08.2013. The repairs were done free of cost during the warranty period, but the complainant wanted the same repairs to be effected free of cost, even after the warranty period which was refused and this prompted the Complainant to file the Complaint.