STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Deepak Aggarwal son of Shri Vinod Aggarwal, resident of House no.209, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office 6^th Floor, Park Centra, Sector 30, NH-8, Gurugram-122001, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

2. Krishna Auto Sales, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, PIN 160002, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite parties

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present through video conferencing:                

                             Sh.Parmod Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh.Ankush Chowdhary, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                             Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of the amount paid by him to opposite party no.2 (dealer), towards purchase of the vehicle make SUV Volvo XC60 D5, bearing chassis no.YVIUZ68ACJ1084904, engine no.2479918 (manufactured by opposite party no.1), on the ground that the said vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question was purchased vide invoice dated 19.05.2018, Annexure C-1, yet, after few days and that too within the warranty period, it was noticed that without giving any command/indication, it turns to the left side on its own, on moderate or high speed. It has been pleaded that on account of the aforesaid manufacturing defect, on number of occasions, the said vehicle was about to hit the berm of the roads, thereby causing life threat to the complainant and general public on roads. It has been further pleaded that not only as above, other defects also occurred in the said vehicle, as a result whereof, it was taken to the workshop of the opposite parties, a number of times, yet they failed to rectify the defects therein, meaning thereby that it suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, he served legal notice dated 07.02.2019, Annexure C-2 upon the opposite parties, seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith compensation etc. but to no avail.

2.           By stating that the aforesaid act of the opposite parties amount to negligence on their part, which has caused lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant,  he has claimed following relief:-

1. “To take back the car and to refund the amount of Rs.69,19,428/- paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the car along with the cost borne on its registration and insurance; and
2. To pay a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- for the harassment suffered by the complainant; and
3. To pay the cost of litigation.
4. Allow photocopies/dim copies/true typed copies of Annexure C1 to C-2 to be placed on record.
5. The Hon'ble forum may be pleased to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

3.           Opposite party no.1 in its written reply stated that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission; that the complaint filed is frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion to prove that the vehicle in question suffered from any  inherent manufacturing defects and unless the said onus is discharged by him, the liability of opposite party no.1 is limited to the removal of defects or replacement of defective parts of the vehicle; that the defects reported in the vehicle in question were removed, as and when, the same was taken to the workshop, during warranty period; that opposite party no.1 cannot be held responsible for any wear a