Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.               The brief facts giving rise to the complaint before learned District Commission are that the complainant purchased a Honda Amaze car bearing registration No.HR51 AW-8398 on 04.09.2013 from OP No.3. Till the month of July, 2014, said car had covered only 10000 kms. It was alleged that on 17th July, 2014 the car was started by complainant and it gave problems in the engine and also stopped many times on his way to home. Upon it on the next day the car was towed to the workshop of OP No.3 at Faridabad and authorized representative of OP No.3 assured the complainant that the defect of the vehicle will be removed after consultation with the engineers of OPs No.1 & 2. Further, it was assured that the car will be inspected in the presence of the complainant. It was further alleged that on 21st July, 2014 the complainant was informed by OP No.3 that after opening the engine as well as further discussion with OPs No.1 & 2, it was found that it was a case of hydrostatic lock and the repair of the car could not be done under the warranty. The repair will be done on paid basis and OP No.3 gave an estimate of about Rs.1,00,000/- for the repairs of the vehicle in question. It was further alleged that it was not a case of hydrostatic lock due to entering of water into the engine.

5.                OP No.3 in its written version submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact of heavy rainfall and consequent water logging on 17th July, 2014. The complainant has also concealed that he drove the car in waterlogged area despite knowledge that the same can cause damage to the vehicle. It was further submitted that OP No.3 has performed its duties and provided its services to the complainant to the best of its ability. However, the complainant first time lodged his grievance on 17th July, 2014 that the car had suddenly stopped. Thereafter, vide email dated 21st July, 2014 after initial inspection of the car the complainant was informed about that water in the air filter was found which indicates hydrostatic lock which cannot be repaired under the warranty. It was further submitted that the problem occurred on account of negligence of the complainant ignoring the prescribed instruction in the owner's manual book and the car was driven in deep (water and flooded Road). Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.              The only issue involved in the present appeal to be adjudicated before this Commission is as to whether the respondent No.1-complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.90,000/- which he had paid to the appellant-OP No.3 for repairs of his vehicle or not because as per the present appellant-OP No.3 after opening the engine as well as further discussion with OPs No.1 & 2, it was found that it was a case of hydrostatic lock which occurred due to entering of water into the engine and the repair of the car could not be done under the warranty, so an amount of Rs.90,000/- was charged from the respondent No.1-complainant. On the other hand, as per respondent No.1-complainant, breakdown of the aforesaid vehicle had been caused due to inherent manufacturing defect for which the company is solely responsible as the said defect had been caused during the period of guarantee/ warranty.