K.G. GHAWARI vs ANBROS MOTORS PVT. LTD.

-THIS is complainant''s appeal filed against judgment and order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 834 of 1999. The complaint was filed against Anbros Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ind. Auto Limited through its Managing Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai (presently known as Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.).

THE complainant purchased a Fiat Uno Delux A.C. Car vide Invoice No. 23 dated 25.9.1998 for a sum of Rs. 4,18,989/-. THE said vehicle was duly registered and registration No. HR-22-B-3316 was allotted to the appellant. THE grievance of the appellant that soon after the purchase of the vehicle, it was detected that the alignment of the wheels was out of order, which resulted in the deprecation of the tyres. THE matter was brought to the notice of the respondents but they expressed their inability to remove the defects as there was no facility for correcting the alignment of wheels. At the time of first service, the technical staff of the respondent recommended the replacement of fuel guage being defective and front wind shield glass. THE respondents, however, failed to replace the same and put of the replacement on one pretext or the other. THE alternative protective pipe was also reported to be defective and was to be replaced but its replacement was refused by the respondents. Besides it, the tubes used in the five wheels of the car were of inferior quality and there was no name of the manufacturer of the tyre tubes mentioned on the tyres, which got damaged and the complainant was put to loss as the costs of replacement of the tubes was not reimbursed by the respondents. THE engine of the car, it was alleged, suffered from manufacturing defects and it started consuming oil more than it should have consumed. THE engine required replacement. The appellant further contended that though the O.Ps. promised to provide all types of after-sale-service to the appellant but the same was not provided and on the other hand, the appellant was put to harassment and humiliation. The appellant paid visits to the premises of the respondents on 5.4.1999, 9.6.1999 and 27.8.1999 and besides this, on four more occasions for getting the car repaired and defective parts replaced. The complainant termed the inaction on the part of the respondents as amounting to deficiency in service rendered to the complainant and filed the complaint case and sought the cost of the tubes and tyres used in the car, which were damaged or in alternative, a direction to replace all the tyres and tubes in the five wheels. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed as reimbursement for making frequent visits from Hisar to Chandigarh on the asking of the respondents. The complainant also sought issuance of direction to the respondents to remove the defects like the fault of alignment, replacement of fuel guage and front wind shield glass, alternator protective pipe and fan belt and horn and a direction for removal of defects of consumption of more engine oil and further to prevent the engine from heat. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as compensation for harassment and mental agony and loss of business or in alternative, a sum of Rs. 4,18,989/-, price of the car, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till date of realization or further in the alternative, replacement of the defective car by another new car of the same make.

The respondents appeared and filed separate replies. The respondent No. 1-Anbros Motors Pvt. Ltd. is the dealer of respondent No. 2-Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Ind Auto Pvt. Ltd.), the manufacturer of the car. The respondent No. 1 took the plea that after purchasing the vehicle on 25.9.1998, the complainant did not approach the respondent No. 1 till 27.8.1999, which was for the third service after the car had already run 21390 kms. though the third service had already become due after the car travelled 15,000 kms. It was contended that on 27.8.1999, the defects pointed out were removed to the satisfaction of the appellant and entry about it was made in the job card requiring the appellant/complainant to bring the car for rechecking after running 100-500 kms. The appellant, however, approached the respondent No. 1 on 20.9.1999 after the vehicle had run 23126 kms. Even then the repairs were done to the satisfaction of the appellant.

THE respondent No. 1 referred to Clause 7 of the warranty, which clearly stipulated that warranty shall cease to operate and become void if all or any of the first or two services have either not been carried out as required or have been carried by other than Fiat uno authorised dealers. It was alleged that the complainant got carried out the service after the prescribed kilometres as the first service was done after 1505 kms. Likewise, the second service became due after the car had run 7500 kms. and the third service became due after the car had run 15000 kms. It was denied that the complainant ever made any complaint with regard to defective alternator at any of the three services carried out. Regarding the tyres being unbranded, it was submitted that the tyres were manufactured by Zigma MRF, a leading tyre manufacturing company. THE complaint regarding the tyres was made in April 1999 after the vehicle had run 9000 kms. Under Clause 1 of the warranty, the respondent No. 1-company did not give any warranty regarding the tyres. THE complaint regarding engine oil was attended to and the same was properly checked. THE defect was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant on 27.8.1999 and 20.9.1999. THEreafter, the complainant never complained of the defect on 25.3.2000 or 18.7.2000. THE allegations regarding manufacturing defect in the engine of the car in question were denied. THE allegations of deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1 was specifically denied. The manufacturer-Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Ind Auto Pvt. Ltd.) in the reply submitted that the complainant never raised an isuse of wheel alignment when he brought the vehicle for the first three services of the car. The problem regarding the wheel alignment was raised only on 27.8.1999 after almost a year of the purchase of the vehicle when the vehicle had been brought for third service at a mileage of 21390 though it should have been brought after the car had been run for 15000 kms. The complaint made in regard to the wheel alignment was attended to and the appellant was advised to get the vehicle rechecked after 100-500 kms. in order to see that the problem persisted or not but the appellant did not bring his car as per the prescribed schedule and instead approached the District Forum and filed the complaint.

THE respondent No. 2 further alleged that the complainant drove the vehicle negligently and violated the terms and conditions of warranty for getting the servicing of the vehicle. THE warranty clause did not include the replacement of tyres and bulbs as the same were not manufactured by it and are beyond the quality control of vehicle manufacturing. It was asserted that due and reasonable care was taken to instal quality product and the tyres used were of MRF Zigma make, which is a repudiated company. In case, the complainant had any problem regarding the tyres/tubes, he should have impleaded MRF as a party in the complaint case. The problem of fuel consumption was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 on 9.6.1999 and the same was rectified satisfactorily as was evident from the job cards dated 25.3.2000 and 18.7.2000. On 18.7.2000, the appellant brought his car to the workshop of respondent No. 1-Anbros Motors Pvt. Ltd. in a state of improper functioning as the appellant drove the vehicle in a water logged area due to which the car was not performing well and most of the functions were impaired. In job card dated 18.7.2000, it was specifically mentioned that the vehicle had run through deep waters and smoke was emanating from the vehicle, which was as a result of reckless and careless driving of the car by the appellant through deep waters causing damage to the fuel pump, timing belt etc. The allegation of manufacturing defect in the engine of the car was denied and the defects, which were minor in nature and which occurred due to the normal use of a diesel vehicle were rectified. The allegation of deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2 was denied. The District Forum considered the evidence led before it, which was in the shape of affidavits and copies of documents and referred to four job cards prepared for the car aforesaid. The District Forum referred to the defects, which were mentioned in the job cards as extracted in the impugned judgment and order. The first job card shows five defects, which were regarding engine oil consumption. Engine oil and oil filter were changed. Wheel alignment was checked. Horn and cluster light were changed. The belt was reported as noisy and the defect was also removed.

IN the second job card bearing No. 817 dated 29.9.1999, the defects reported at the workshop of respondent No. 1 related to mobile oil consumption; wheel alignment and wheel progs; electrical checking; horn not functioning; average to check 12 kms.; rear shockers and front suspension. All these defects, it was found, were removed at the workshop.

IN the third job card bearing No. 2510 dated 25.3.2000, the defects were relating to wheel alignment, alternator to be checked and wheel balancing. IN the fourth and the last job card bearing No. 1319 dated 18.7.2000, the defects reported were about engine oil which was changed; oil filter was also changed; diesel filter was also changed; washing was done; timing belt was checked; A.C. was checked and the problem of more smoke was emanating from the car was also attended to. The respondent on 18.7.2000 found that the vehicle had been run through deep water. However, the service was done and the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the appellant.

The respondent No. 1, the District Forum held, found that on one hand, the appellant had failed to get the vehicle serviced within the prescribed time and secondly the vehicle had been driven carelessly in deep waters. The District Forum also observed that besides the affidavit of the appellant, there was no other evidence to establish the version set out in the complaint regarding the vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect.

THE District Forum held that on the basis of bald assertion about the vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect, the same could not be found proved and replacement of the car could not be ordered nor the refund of the price of the car could be ordered. THE fuel guage and front wind shield glass, which were to be replaced as per the first two services record by the mechanics of the respondent but the same were not replaced and as such, the same are required to be replaced by the new fuel guage and new front wind shield glass. THE District Forum further held that the complaint of the appellant regarding the wheel alignment was properly attended to and removed to his satisfaction. It was also held that the complainant did not bring the car for rechecking despite being told by the respondents. After referring the evidence on record and discussing the same, the District Forum held that though the defects pointed out by the complainant did not warrant replacement of the vehicle yet the complainant must have suffered harassment as he had to visit Chandigarh from Hisar as to get the defects rectified. The fuel guage and front wind shield glass, which were recommended by the mechanic to be replaced but the same were not replaced. The replacement was recommended way back in 1988 and as such the same must have been got replaced by the complainant. The District Forum accepted the complaint partly and awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,000/- besides costs of Rs. 1,000/- and held both the respondents/O.Ps. liable jointly and severally. The aforesaid amount was ordered to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the appellant was held entitled to recover the amount of compensation with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the order till payment.

THE main contention of the appellant is that though the District Forum held that there was harassment caused to the appellant but the compensation, which has been awarded for the harassment as well as for reimbursement on account of replacement of fuel guage and front wind shield glass, is a paltry sum of Rs. 3,000/-, which is quite inadequate. THE respondents/O.Ps. did not challenge the impugned order as they did not file any appeal against the impugned order and thus accepted the judgment and order of the District Forum. The sole question, which arises for our consideration is whether the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,000/- is just and proper or the same requires to be enhanced. It is not disputed that the complainant came all the way from Hisar to Chandigarh and brought his car for removal of the defects as also for the three services falling due after the purchase of the car. The complainant covered the distance from Hisar to Chandigarh and back, brought the vehicle apart from the three services, for four more occasions. The respondents have, however, admitted the visits of the complainant at the workshop of respondent No. 1 on 27.8.1999, 20.9.1999, 25.3.2000 and 18.7.2000. The respondents have not admitted about the other visits, which have been referred to by the appellant.

APART from the affidavit of the appellant, there is no other material placed before us from which we may consider the visit of the appellant on occasions other than the aforesaid four dates. However, the appellant would have spent money over the fuel for running the car from Hisar to Chandigarh and back on atleast four dates aforesaid. APART from it, he was put to harassment as per the finding of the District Forum itself and the fuel gauge and front windshield glass, which were to be replaced as per the report of the mechanic of respondent No. 1 were not replaced and were got replaced by the appellant, which is also the finding of the District Forum.

TAKING these facts and circumstances into consideration, the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,000/- appears to be on the lower side. According to our considered opinion, the complainant deserves to be awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for meeting the expenses for bringing the car from Hisar to Chandigarh and back and the costs of the fuel gauge and front wind shield glass and lastly for the harassment and agony, which he underwent as per the finding of the District Forum. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that the appellant/complainant is awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-, which has already been awarded by the District Forum. The amount of compensation, as modified less any amount, if paid already, shall be paid to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 7% per annum till payment.

Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.