KRISHNA AUTO SALES Vs. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 3.3.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') in (Appeal No. 464 of 2010).

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Respondent/Complainant had purchased a Skoda vehicle for being used by Sh. Subodh Gupta, Member Executive Board for his personal use from M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Limited (who was Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum) on 27.7.2005 for a total price of Rs. 10,95,500/ -. The said vehicle was got serviced from the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2 (Authorized Service Station) of Opposite Party No. 1 on 24.10.2008 with meter reading as 87,700 Kms. It is stated that petitioner changed oil filter, fuel filter weight balance, bulb etc. and nothing else was notified by its engineer. It is stated that Toothed Time Belt needs a check up when vehicle had covered 90,000 Kms. and would require a replacement, if so required. Thereafter, paid service was got done on 24.2.2009 at 96,605 Kms. from the petitioner. Its engineers informed that Toothed Timing Belt needs replacement but was not replaced on 24.2.2009 due to non -availability of the belt with it. However, complainant was advised that vehicle can still be used for some more time as they did not foresee any immediate problem and was asked to check with them after 15 days. However, the said belt was not available in the workshop. It is stated that on 31st March, 2009, the vehicle suddenly stopped on the main road of Ramgarh -Mubarakpur and was then towed to the service station of the petitioner, who found that the Timing Toothed Belt kit had gone out of order. It is alleged that it was the duty of the service engineers of the petitioner, to inform that the belt needed replacement when vehicle was serviced by them on 24.10.2008 at 87,700 Kms. as per the Service Manual and instructions contained therein. Thus, respondent had suffered tension and mental agony due to the attitude of the petitioner. Thus, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T, Chandigarh (for short, 'District Forum') seeking following reliefs;

(3.) ON merits, it is stated that vehicle in question was got serviced by it at 47,115 Kms. on 01.06.2007. Subsequently, on 19.3.2008 when it had covered 72,243 Kms. Later on the vehicle was got serviced at 87,770 Kms. It is stated that respondent was advised to park the vehicle at their parking place and was also told, that as and when the timing belt is made available by the petitioner, the same will be supplied for replacement. However, petitioner never advised the respondent that vehicle can be used for some more time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part