Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.             It was further stated that on 14.08.2013, the car, in question, suddenly broke-down on the highway, and again accident was averted. It was further stated that the vehicle was towed to Opposite Party No.2, where it remained for two weeks but the patent defects could not be retified. It was further stated that again on 17.09.2013, the car was brought to the workshop for the rectification of defects viz. fuel filler cap stopped functioning; noise from both the front doors; music system stopped reading disk; air jammed in AC/smell coming from inside cabin from outside even fresh mode off; anti-skidding mode started 'Off/On' on its own; and the vehicle pulling towards left hand side. It was further stated that the workshop staff claimed to have solved the problems, but the same kept on recurring again and again. It was further stated that the steering wheel of the vehicle suddenly got rotated at 90 degree, on its own, while the complainant was on his way to Srinagar. It was further stated that the car was taken to Srinagar NHIA Tengpora where the wheels were aligned. It was further stated that the problem reoccurred a few days thereafter, but could not be rectified and was still subsisting.

3.             It was further stated that on 22.11.2013, the anti-skidding mode again started working on its own and auto cruze stopped working, which problem could not be set right by the staff of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that on 28.12.2013, the complainant took the car to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, where it was kept for 15 days, but the problems could not be rectified. It was further stated that the defects aforesaid were reported to the Company on 5.2.2014, 22.2.2014, 7.4.2014 and 3.5.2014, but neither its representatives, who inspected the vehicle nor the workshop staff were serious to set right the same. It was further stated that there is a major manufacturing defect, in the engine, and other parts of the vehicle, which could not be rectified, despite various visits of the complainant to the workshop.

7.             It was further stated that on 10.06.2013, the vehicle was reported at the dealership with the problem of dickey door noise, which was rectified by doing minor adjustment of rubber pad. It was further stated that the dickey door noise, could not be said to be  a patent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the rubber could be misaligned due to any external factors or due to some mishandling or negligent handling. It was denied that the problem of indicator still persisted in the vehicle and sometimes the indicators stopped working.  It was further stated that this problem of indicators was non-existing in the vehicle. It was further stated that the photographs attached, could be clicked when meter gets activated and all the lights turned on for a while. It was further stated that the car did not break down because of technical defects, in the functioning of the engine, rather on 14.8.2013, the car reported at the dealership with broken 'flywheel drive plate'. It was further stated that the function of flywheel drive plate is to transmit the power from the engine to the transmission through flywheel, which pushes the vehicle in forward direction. It was further stated that if at any point of time, anybody forcibly tries to engage the reverse gear while the vehicle is moving forward or shifting of lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine is at inappropriate RPM, there will be two opposite forces working at the same time on the flywheel and drive plate, resulting in high torsional forces on the parts.  It was further stated that these opposite forces can cause the failure of the material/break the flywheel drive plate. It was further stated that in the vehicle of the complainant, most likely reason for the breaking of the flywheel was that while driving at the high speed, the driver/co-driver had inadvertently engaged the reverse gear or shifting or lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine was at inappropriate RPM and it caused the breakage of fly wheel drive plate. It was further stated that the situation was explained in the email dated 26.08.2013 that gearbox, engine and other assemblies were perfectly fine.

22.           It is evident that the vehicle, in question, viz. SUV Ssangyong, Top Model i.e. Rexton RX 270 XVI, was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 on 13.05.2013 at a total cost of Rs.21,06,841/- (Annexure C-1). The vehicle as per the latest job card relating to repair on 03.05.2014 at the time of 3rd Free Service, had covered 28517 KMs. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle has been giving trouble from the very beginning due to some patent manufacturing defects. From the documents, placed by the complainant on record, it is established that the complainant took the vehicle for repair to Opposite Party No.2 on 10.06.2013 with the problem of noise in the tail gate (Annexure C-3 colly.); on 10.08.2013 for indicator not working & air bag indication sometimes glowing on display panel; on 14.08.2013 for breakdown as the vehicle did not start & towed through towing van, clutch hard; on 02.01.2014/09.01.2014 with the problems viz. ESP Switch off automatically, Auto cruze get off automatically, Head light not working properly, Indicators not working properly, Music system not working properly, Side view mirror noise both, Dickey noise & Dry cleaning not done properly; on 31.01.2014/05.02.2014 for RHS rear mirror loosen, Sound from gear box, Tyre wear (Front) excessive, Gad Gad noise from front underbody & Rear door noise (CHID CHID) and on 12.02.2014 with the problem of ESP light on & Gear noise. On other occasions i.e. 17.09.2013, 28.10.2013, 23.11.2013, 22.02.2014, 29.03.2014, 07.04.2014 and 03.05.2014, the vehicle was taken for running repairs, general check-up and free services. The documents, on record, reveal that, as and when, the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.2, the same was due to different reasons. At no stage, the vehicle was taken on account of any manufacturing defect, in the engine. It is also evident that Opposite Party No.2, even changed the parts i.e. Element Kit Oil filter, Element Assy., Pad set-Frt. Brake, Filter fuel, Air filter assy, Disposable protective cover K. on 23.11.2013; Contact coil Assy.-steering & Clock Assy.-Ditical R and R on 22.02.2014; Tension assy. Belt & Belt-Ply, Grooved on 07.04.2014 and Element kit oil filter & Air filter assy. on 03.05.2014 and in respect of other defects, carried out the repairs. No doubt the vehicle suffered from one or the other defects, at one point of time or the other. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect is not on sound   footing.  Not only this, the complainant has not supported his contention with any expert evidence. It is also evident that the vehicle during one year period, as per Annexure C-3 colly. (Page 30), had covered 28517 KMs as on 03.05.2014. It is not the case of the complainant that he was not using the vehicle at the time of filing the complaint. At the rate of usage of the vehicle, during the first year of purchase, the vehicle would have covered another 28000 KMs or so. When a vehicle is used, there is bound to be normal wear and tear. In Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., 2010 (2) CPJ 67, the National Commission held that in the absence of expert opinion, it is difficult to hold that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Since in the instant case, the complainant failed to establish, on record, any manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, as observed by the National Commission in Satnam Singh Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & others's case (supra), replacement of vehicle, cannot be allowed. At the same time, there has been occurrence of different defects in the vehicle, which certainly caused harassment to the complainant. However, the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the complainant in M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. And another and G. K. Jain Vs. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and Another's case (supra), are distinguishable on facts and, as such, no benefit out of them can be derived by the Counsel for the complainant. In G. K. Jain Vs. M/s Maruti Udyog Limited's case (supra), there was major problem regarding caster and camber, which continued and the vehicle had also covered only 5500 KM during a long period of 5 years, whereas in the instant case, the vehicle, in question, during one year period had covered 28517 KMs (i.e. from the date of purchase on 13.05.2013 till 03.05.2014). In M/s. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.'s case (supra), the National Commission, after discussing the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by it (National Commission) and the report of an expert namely, Mr. Balraj Bhanot, of the Company, came to a definite conclusion that the temperature of the hump of a Mercedez Benz, which was one of the costliest cars, increased during long journeys and, therefore, it could be said that it was not free from defects. However, in the instant case, the complainant did not lead any expert evidence, to establish the factum of any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is, thus, a fit case, in which repair of vehicle and replacement of its defective parts without charging any amount, to make it fully functional, can be ordered. Since no manufacturing defect in the vehicle was proved, replacement thereof cannot be ordered. The Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, by not fully rectifying the defects, in the vehicle reported from time to time.