AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.3.2019 whereby the State Commission awarded a compensation quantified at Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant / appellant alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.22,000/-.
The respondent company had also preferred an appeal against the impugned order being FA/830/2019 which came to be dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 30.5.2019.
The facts giving rise to filing of the consumer complaint by the appellant have been noted by this Commission in its order dated 30.5.2019 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"The complainant/respondent no.1 purchased a Mercedes CDI-220 car manufactured by the appellant, from its dealer M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.37 lacs, on 17.09.2015. The case of the complainant is that within a few days of its purchase, the car started creating noise when it had run only 1424 kms. The vehicle was inspected by the dealer and shockers were replaced. The car was again taken to the workshop on 25.11.2015, on noticing sounds coming from its doors and some adjustments were done. The sunroof of the car was also adjusted when noise from the cabin was noticed. There was also a cut found on the front tyre which was replaced on 24.12.2015 when the car had run 4140 kms. Again, there was noise from the cabin of the vehicle and the sunroof had to be adjusted again. The vehicle again gave problem when it had run 7961 kms and seal frames of the doors as well as the sunroof were replaced. Thereafter, the doors and bidding had to be adjusted on 16.03.2016 when the vehicle had run 7971 kms.
Faced with persistent problems with the car, the complainant got the same inspected from Grace Automotives who gave an inspection report dated 23.04.2016 opining that there seemed to be an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle which the manufacturer was unable to locate and rectify. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking replacement of the car or in the alternative, refund of the amount he had paid for the purchase of the car alongwith compensation etc.
The complaint was resisted by the appellant which admitted that the vehicle carried a warranty of three years from the date of registration/sale. The case of the appellant was that during the warranty period, its liability was limited to repair/replacement of the defective parts which it had done as and when reported by the complainant.
The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 27.03.2019, directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.22,000/-. Though no replacement of the vehicle or refund of the sale consideration was directed, the appellant is not satisfied and is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
The State Commission vide its order dated 13.07.2018, requested the Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College to constitute a team of experts to check the vehicle and submit a report. This was done considering the conflicting expert reports submitted by the parties to the State Commission. The expert Committee consisting of Prof. Sushant Samir, Prof. Gopal Dass and Prof. Ankit Yadav of Punjab Engineering College submitted a report which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
"The vehicle having registration no. CH01BE7575, Chassis No.WDD2050026L003465, Engine No.65192132732459 was presented for inspection and test drive. The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for 34 kms.
During test drive the committee noticed that there was a creaking noise of small intensity emanating from the rear door of the vehicle in question. No other type of sound/noise was observed inside the seating area during test drive."
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant/respondent had to suffer harassment for a long period, on account of a defective car having been sold to him. Since the third party expert appointed by the State Commission found that the defect in the car persisted at the time the car was inspected by him, the State Commission in addition to granting compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant on account of his having been compelled to use the car the door of which was constantly giving noise, ought to have directed the respondent to remove the said defect. If the said defect is not removed, the user of the car would have no option except either to live with the defect and continue to drive the car with its rear door making continuous or get the said defect removed at an appropriate workshop.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:-
The appellant/complainant shall take the car to an authorized service centre of Dalmier AG in Chandigarh and if it is found that the defect noticed by the by the expert from Punjab Engineering College still persists, the said defect shall be removed by the respondent Dalmier - M/s Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. at its own costs, within two weeks of the car being brought at the workshop. After removing the said defect, the car will be returned to the complainant alongwith a certificate from an automobile engineer certifying therein that no creaking noise was now emanating from the rear door of the car.
If the automobile engineer who inspects the vehicle finds no creaking noise coming from the rear door of the car, he shall issue a certificate in terms of the inspection made by him and that shall be taken as due compliance of the order passed by this Commission with liberty to the complainant to assail the same by way of execution before the concerned State Commission.