IMPORTANT POINT
Persistent problems in new car would amount to manufacturing defect.

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by the order passed in Consumer Complaint No.71/2014 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’), The first Opposite Party preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’). By the impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint with the direction to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects with respect to the noise in the front wheel of the car within a period of one month, together with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and costs of Rs. 11,000/-.

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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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., Rs. 40,43,000/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a., from 31.08.2011, till realisation, compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. The first Opposite Party filed its Written Version with a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle was purchased in the name of the Proprietorship Firm ‘RKTV Centre’ and he is using the car for commercial purposes. In the Written Version, it is stated that the Complainant had signed the satisfactory note on 14.01.2012 and on 23.06.2012 and the Complainant was adhered to and the break-pads were changed. The Complainant compelled the Opposite Parties to change the break-pads even after the warranty period, which was not possible, as the vehicle had run more than 32,000 kms, in the last two years. There is no manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency of service on its part and seeks direction for dismissal of the Complaint, with costs.

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 Commissio