KRISHAN KANT Vs. G M I INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Krishan Kant (in short the appellant ) against the order dated 7.6.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the District Forum ) by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased an Opel Corsa Car from respondent No. 2 on 16.1.2003 bearing engine No. 6B0004511 and temporary registration No. PB -08 -AB -Temp. 7385 with a warranty of 12 months. The car was purchased through finance of HDFC Bank Ltd., Ludhiana. It was asserted that on the first day, the engine of the car developed defect causing starting problem and giving noise. The defect was brought to the notice of workshop manager but the appellant was told that after driving 1000 kms., the vehicle will be checked and if there would be any defect in the engine or noise, then the same will be removed. As such, after driving 1000 kms., the appellant visited the shop of respondent No. 2 who changed the filter of the engine and did service of the car, etc., However, the defects were not removed and the pick up power of the car was diminished. At the asking of the mechanic and manager, the appellant left the car there for proper checking. After 2/3 days, when the appellant went to the workshop to bring the car, he was told that all the defects had been removed. Again on the assurance of the manager, the appellant dropped the car for checking but even thereafter, there was problem including pickup. It was further averred that on 6.7.2003, the appellant went to the workshop to get his car back. The manager gave him estimated bill of Rs. 65,600 and asked to pay the same to get back the vehicle. However, since there was a warranty of 12 months, as such, the appellant was not liable to pay this amount. On refusal to pay the same, the respondents refused to deliver the car. It was further averred that the car was having a manufacturing defect or that an old car had been given to the appellant. The respondents also did not supply the proper documents of the car i.e. bills, etc., The appellant requested Dada Motors to remove or replace the defective parts free of costs but to no effect. The appellant suffered mental torture on account of negligent services of the respondents. It had, therefore, been prayed that the respondents be directed to replace the car with a new one or to set right the car in working order by replacing the defective parts and to pay Rs. 3 lacs towards compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint was false and frivolous. The appellant had concealed the material facts. In fact, the appellant had violated the terms and conditions of the warranty as he drove the vehicle from the water logged roads which were a clearcut violation of Clause No. 5, Sub -clause (b). The hydro -static lock of the vehicle got damaged due to which, the engine block also got damaged. As such, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be held liable for the defects so occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant. As such, the warranty period of one year came to an end as per violation of Clause 5, Sub -clause (b). Besides this, the appellant also violated the terms and conditions of the owner s manual as the second service of the vehicle was to be due on 10,000 mileage of the vehicle. However, he brought the vehicle on 8.7.2003 after mileage of 11332 and that too by damaging engine block and a hydro -static lock by driving the vehicle through the water logged roads. As such, he cannot take benefit of his own wrongs. It was further pleaded that the appellant brought the vehicle for the first service on 4.1.2003 after the mileage of 1364 kms. and there was no problem nor the appellant did make any complaint with regard to the vehicle which was clear from job card dated 4.1.2003. It was denied that on 6.7.2003, the appellant went to the workshop to get his car back or the Manager estimated the bill of Rs. 65,500 or asked him to pay the same. Still further, the answering respondents sent letters to the appellant regarding approval of job but he did not respond. Even a letter was written on 19.9.2003 for getting approval of the appellant for repair of the vehicle but to no effect. The appellant himself failed to take back the vehicle which was standing in the workshop of the respondents. All other assertions of complaint had been denied by the respondents and it had been prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.