2012(2) CPR 165
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.B. Mhase, President and S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
Rajesh Roongta —Complainant
versus
Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. CC 11/162
Decided on 27.9.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Miss Shivani Tibrewala, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Defects which surfaced after long time of purchase of car are not manufacturing defects.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Automobile—Defect—Problems were attended for different causes as and when reported to satisfaction of Complainant—Car had run for more than 50,000 km. and for initial running of six months there was no problem at all—Whatever complaints surfaced, they came thereafter—All those complaints were within area of repairs and were attended from time-to-time through service centre , to the satisfaction of Complainant—It does not appear to be a case of any manufacturing defect—Complaint also time-barred—Complainant has failed to make any prima facie case to admit complaint—Complaint rejected. (Paras 4 to 7)
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member—Heard Advocate Shivani Tibrewala for the Complainant on admission at length.
2. Perused the record.
3. It is the grievance of the Complainant that on 30.11.2007 he had purchased a ‘Skoda Laura Elegance’ motor-car from the Opponent No.2, namely, M/s. Autograph Cars (I) Pvt. Ltd. Said car is manufactured by the Opponent No. 1, namely- Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant purchased the said car for travelling from Daman to Mumbai for official purposes during the course of his business. It is a grievance of the Complainant that after second servicing on 22.5.2008, the car was dragging at a lower speed and further at slightly higher speed around 80-90 km. per hour, the car became unstable. Such problem occurred for the first time. It was further noticed that after the second servicing of the car, the acceleration of the engine speed found going up on and often. It was also noticed that earlier the car which was negotiating easily the curves on the highway, the car became unstable on such events. The Complainant feared that the stability features of the car were malfunctioning though warning signals never appeared to that effect. Car also had tyre inflation pressure control system which lights up a warning signal if there is any decrease or increase in the pressure of any tyre. While driving back on 30.6.2008, left side rear tyre got punctured but, no warning signal blinked. The Complainant assumed that it was due to poor quality of tyres used in the car. Same is the case in respect of fuse bulbs and no warning signals were received. It is further assumed by the Complainant that all such problems were due to low quality of spare- parts used by the car manufacturer. On 6.6.2008, the battery of the car was required to be replaced since there was starting problem. During the period 25.4.2009 to 2.6.2009, the car was parked at the workshop of the Opponent No.2 for abnormal arrest of speed while running at a speed of 100 km. per hour. Said defect was confirmed by taking a test drive to Lonavala and Virar. However, no permanent solution to the problem was found. The Complainant also referred to the two instances where repairing charges of Rs.26,532 and Rs.50,847 were collected from him in spite of repairs being covered under the warranty period. .On 30.3.2011, further estimate of expenses of Rs. 93,750 for replacement of various parts was also given. The problems are further detailed in paragraph (16)(iii) of the complaint referring to the pick-up problem, suspension problem, problem with air-conditioner switch, hard clutch, ignition startup, instability at high speed, driver side door handle, air-conditioner cooling, lag in the door stopper as well as engine noise, automatic window opening, problem with the front side door and poor average of fuel consumption of 14-15 km. per litre. It is a diesel car. Therefore, present consumer complaint was filed on 6.7.2011, alleging deficiency in service.
4. From the job-cards placed on the record, it could be seen that the problems were attended for different causes as and when reported to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Those problems were attended at the service station of the Opponent No.2. Even one satisfaction note dated 13.3.2010 placed on the record signed by the Complainant in respect of Job No.3709 dated 10.3.2010, pertaining to the problem Check AC Cooling Not Properly, Check Noise While Turning’. It is reported by the Complainant as under:
“We have taken a trial from Mumbai-Daman-Mumbai on 11.3.2010 along with Mr. Suresh Kumar and the unstability above 100 km./hr & pick up problem and the pressure at Acceleration still there:
…..taken the road test of my car. Now the car is in good condition and performing to my entire satisfaction. I am hereby taking the Delivery of my Car alongwith the Belongings.”
The matter typed in Italics appears in handwriting and authenticity of the said endorsement in handwriting needs to be established parti