ANAND KUMAR BANSAL Vs. PREMIER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the order dated 22.07.2015 in First Appeals bearing No. 23/2015 & 90/2015 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals preferred by M/s Premier Limited and M/s Royal Premium Automobiles and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short "the District Forum"), which has allowed the Complaint.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant purchased a new car from Royal Premium Automobiles, arrayed as the First Opposite Party in the Complaint, (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") manufactured by Premier Limited, arrayed as the Second Opposite Party in the Complaint, (hereinafter referred to as "the Manufacturer") on 31.12.2011 against payment of Rs.5,95,000/- apart from paying a sum of Rs.20,220/- towards VAT. At the time of purchase of the car, the Dealer issued warranty for three years/50,000 kms against all manufacturing defects. The Complainant got the afore-said car registered with the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles, Hanumangarh and the same was allotted registration No. RJ31CB/3132. Just after a few days of purchase of the said car, it developed defects as the same started to heat up while in use, consume excess mobile oil and the average consumption of fuel by the car was quite low i.e. only 10 km/pl whereas the Opposite Parties claimed the same to be 16 km/pl. The air conditioner of the car also did not work properly. The Complainant got the car serviced on 09.02.2012 at 5048 kms; IInd service on 16.03.2012 at 11020 kms and IIIrd service on 26.05.2012 at 15482 kms. The defects were reported to the Dealer who assured that the said defects would disappear with the use of the vehicle and that he should not worry about the same. In April, 2012, the Complainant, along with his family members, was going from Bhadra to Chhitorgarh in the subject car. When they reached Bhilwara, the engine of the car developed some defect and got heated, started emitting noise and stopped on its own. The Complainant contacted Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Manager of the Dealer who told the Complainant that he was sending a vehicle to the spot, which would tow the car of the Complainant and would bring the same to the service centre. The Complainant was assured that after its repair, the vehicle would be returned to him. However, despite the said intimation, nobody came. The Complainant again contacted Mr. Rakesh Sharma, who told the Complainant to get the vehicle checked-up from a local mechanic and the cost of the said repair would be refunded to him. The Complainant after waiting for a sufficiently long period of time, got the car checked from a local mechanic of Bhilwara, who charged Rs.5,000/- but even then the car did not start. The mechanic of Bhilwara stated that the engine and pump of the car were defective. The Complainant had no other option, but to wait for the mechanic to be sent by the Dealer but nobody came there despite a telephonic message to the said Manager. Left with no other option, the Complainant arranged some other vehicle for taking the defective car to the service centre of the Opposite Parties. He paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards towing charges. The Dealer made payment of Rs.13,000/-. The Dealer kept the vehicle for 30 days. The Complainant made several visits to the Dealer for repair of the vehicle and also for returning the same but the Dealer put off the matter by saying that the Engineer of the Manufacturing Company would inspect and repair the vehicle. The Dealer after keeping the above vehicle for 30 days, returned the same to the Complainant, but even then the above problems in the engine could not be rectified. The said problems still subsist in the subject car and the same is not working properly. It is stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the said car and the same requires replacement. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested them to either replace the subject car with a new one or refund the price, but there was no response.

(3.) The Dealer, in the Written Statement, admitted the selling of the car to the Complainant but denied the rest of the Complainant's pleadings. It was stated that: there was no manufacturing defect in the car; that as and when the car was brought to the service centre, due to normal wear and tear, it was duly repaired and returned and thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Dealer; that the liability, if any, is of the Manufacturer.