w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Global Administration Services Pvt. Ltd v/s Alok Malhotra & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL I T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2004PTC127805

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17116MH1947PTC005768

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2004PTC124911

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2008PLC130221

Company & Directors' Information:- K & S GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL1996PTC082621

Company & Directors' Information:- I - GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2010PTC059452

Company & Directors' Information:- H L MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015821

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL SERVICES (C & F ) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60300MH1982PTC027712

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300MH2014PTC259803

Company & Directors' Information:- MALHOTRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030MH2012PTC227227

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC242295

Company & Directors' Information:- S. MALHOTRA & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC095990

    First Appeal No. 173 of 2011

    Decided On, 05 May 2017

    At, Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.S. VERMA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. VEENA SHARMA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M.K. Kohli, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, ArunUniyal, R3, B.K. Tyagi, S.K. Gupta, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Veena Sharma, Member

1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellant-opposite party No. 3 against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 155 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 3-appellant and directed the appellant to repair the vehicle No. UA04-E-6638 on its own cost through opposite party No. 1-dealer to the satisfaction of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant, within a month from the date of order. The consumer complaint is dismissed against the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for any kind of compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the consumer complaint are that the opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of opposite party No. 2-Tata Motors Ltd., who is the manufacturing company. The complainant had purchased a car, Tata Indigo (Diesel LX/Dicor) on 25.5.2007 from opposite party No. 1-dealer. This vehicle is registered as UA04-E-6636. On the purchase of vehicle, the opposite party No. 2-manufacuting company provided warranty of 18 months to the complainant and thereafter on 25.7.2007 warranty was extended for further 18 months on payment of Rs. 3,450 . In this way, the total warranty of 36 months was provided for the vehicle to the complainant. From the date of purchase of the vehicle, noise was coming out from the engine and in this regard on 2.11.2007, the complainant brought his vehicle in the workshop of opposite party No. 1, but opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that this is a simple and common problem which shall be normal after driving this vehicle for some more time. After sometime, other problems like excessive smoke and problem in power window stared besides sound in the engine for which the complainant brought the vehicle for twelve times from 4.2.2007, but these problems/defects could not be rectified. On 3.9.2009, when the complainant was going somewhere, the vehicle stopped suddenly and could not be started again. He brought the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No. 1 through toe-chain, but the opposite party No. 1 did not rectify the defects, which is still lying at the workshop of opposite party No. 1. On enquiry on 5.10.2009, the opposite party No. 1 has apprised the complainant through a letter that the opposite party No. 2 has refused to rectify the defects of vehicle. The complainant has no concern about the grounds taken by opposite party No. 2, because since 2.11.2007 the complainant always brought the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No. 1. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss by the conduct of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 by not rectifying the defects in vehicle, during the period of warranty. The act of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 comes under deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, through his Advocate Mr. Ganesh Singh Negi on 9.10.2009, but opposite party Nos. 1 did not reply the same and opposite party No. 2 did not give satisfactory reply. On the basis of information given by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant has made opposite party No. 3 necessary party in the consumer complaint. The ground taken by opposite party No. 3 to reject the claim is baseless. The service history prepared by opposite party No. 1 is wrong and is not admissible in evidence, as this document is not signed by the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace this vehicle with a new vehicle or in alternate to pay Rs. 5,72,534 to him. He is also prayed for Rs. 2 lakh for mental agony and financial loss as well as for litigation expenses.

3. The opposite party No. 1-M/s. Gola Ganpati Motors and opposite party No. 2-Tata Motors Ltd. have filed their separate written statements before the District Forum and have pleaded that it is admitted to the answering opposite parties that they have received notice from the complainant’s Counsel and proper reply of the same was given. Whenever, the said vehicle of the complainant was brought to workshop of opposite party No. 1 for rectification of any defect or repairs, it was always done properly with good mechanical skill by expert mechanics of opposite party No. 1 up to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle in question was not having any manufacturing defect. The answering opposite parties have never done any deficiency in service. The answering opposite parties are not at all responsible or liable to pay the cost of the vehicle in question or to replace the same with a new one. It is noteworthy that after reporting of engine problem in the said car by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1, after inspection by the mechanic, the fuel system of the said car was found defective and the said fact was told to the complainant, but he never consented for replacement of the same and fuel filter till today due to which the said car of the complainant is unnecessarily parked in the garage of opposite party No. 1, who is entitled to receive garage charges @ Rs. 150 per day till date. It is pertinent to mention here that the said fuel system is not manufactured by the manufacturer of the car-opposite party No. 2, as such the replacement of the same is not covered under warranty/guarantee as per manufacturer’s warranty/guarantee terms, conditions and norms. The consumer complaint is time barred. The opposite party No. 3-Global Administration Services Pvt. Ltd. has also filed written statement and has pleaded that the present complaint ought to be dismissed, since the complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts. As per the information received from the dealer-opposite party No. 1, the said car in question of the complainant was not having any major inherent manufacturing defects and whenever the said car was brought to the opposite party No. 1’s workshop for any rectification, repairs or service, it was always done properly with good mechanical skill by expert mechanics of opposite party No. 1 up to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1-dealer received Rs. 3,450 from the complainant for the answering opposite party, which the answering opposite party received from the dealer and gave extended warranty (not guarantee) of 18 months for the said car of complainant, which was effective from 25.11.2008 to 24.5.2010 and when the fuel system of said car was found defective and job card was opened for repairs, on that date the said car was bearing extended warranty of the answering opposite party. Whatever defects that arose in the complainant’s car during extended warranty period, no doubt their rectification of replacement of any part was to be done by opposite party No. 1-dealer, but subject to the condition upon the approval of claim lodged before the answering opposite party and later on, the answering opposite party would have reimbursed the opposite party No. 1 for the amount (cost of part, labour charges etc.) but in the instant case, what happened was that when the job card of the said car was opened on 27.4.2009 and mainly gearbox of the said car was found noisy and upon its opening, it was found that inner shaft bearing needed to be changed as such the opposite party No. 1 intimated about the same to the answering opposite party vide claim intimation-cum-estimate of repairs upon which the answering opposite party responded to the dealer and allowed dealer to replace the said ball bearing (claim No. K-2281/0409) in the car of complainant vide its e-mail dated 28.4.2009 and demanded tax invoice, claim form and Xerox copies of service record from service manual and job card upon which opposite party No. 1 sent all these documents to the answering opposite party and replaced the said ball bearing upon his own cost but later on 1.7.2009, the answering opposite party intimated opposite party No. 1 by an e-mail that the claim amount cannot be paid as ‘oil change service not done at 40,000 kms. as per the service history and not even at the time of claim’. Also it is pertinent to mention here that on 16.1.2009, when service was done in complainant’s car at that time odometer reading was 34,882 kms. and the complainant prevented opposite party No. 1 to change engine oil, fuel filter as is evident from the service history though the same was to be changed on 30,000 kms. resulting which the fuel system of the said car got defective due to which the answering opposite party is not at all responsible for the replacement or rectification of the same. As per the information received from the dealer, whenever the said car vehicle in question was brought to the opposite party No. 1’s workshop for rectification of any defects or repairs, it was always done properly with good mechanical skill by expert mechanics of opposite party No. 1 up to the satisfaction of the complainant and the said vehicle of complainant was not having any manufacturing defects. The answering opposite party is not at all responsible or liable to pay the cost of the vehicle or to replace the same with a new one to the complainant.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 4.8.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 3-appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. M.K. Kohli, learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2, Mr. ArunUniyal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.K. Tyagi, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. We have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and have also perused the material placed on record.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum has not considered the fact that the respondent No. 1-complainant has not taken proper care of the vehicle and has not brought the vehicle for servicing in time. The District Forum has not considered the fact that the oil of the vehicle was not changed in time. The Fora below has not considered the fact that the fuel system of the vehicle is not covered under the warranty. Since the respondent No. 1 has not brought the vehicle for servicing in time and has also not got the oil of the vehicle changed and hence the respondent No. 1 has breached the terms and conditions of the warranty and, thus, he was not entitled to any benefit of the warranty. The District Forum has not considered the fact that the appellant has rightly turned down the claim of the respondent No. 1 because the respondent No. 1 has not taken proper care of the vehicle. There was no deficiency in service of the appellant. It is a settled law that if a part to be replaced in a vehicle is not covered under the warranty, the customer is required to pay the cost of the said part and the same cannot be replaced free of cost under the warranty. Respondent No. 1 has himself breached the terms and conditions of the warranty. The Court below has overlooked the material on record and has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There was no expert evidence on record to prove that the respondent No. 1 has taken proper care of the vehicle and the defect in the vehicle did not occur on account of any fault on his part.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the effect that the respondent No. 1-complainant purchased Tata Indigo car on 25.5.2007 from the opposite party No. 1-respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed that 18 months warranty was given on the purchase of this new car Tata Indigo and it is also undisputed that on 25.7.2007 warranty was extended for further 18 months on payment of Rs. 3,450. It is to be seen whether amount of extended warranty, i.e. Rs. 3,450 was paid by the dealer-opposite party No. 1 to the appellant-opposite party No. 3 for reimbursement of certain parts during warranty period and whether fuel system, one of the parts, was covered under the extended warranty or not and it is also to be seen whether appellant-opposite party No. 3 was responsible to settle the claim or to pay the amount of the part changed by the dealer in the vehicle of respondent No. 1.

8. Respondent No. 1 has filed service history, job-card dated 3.9.2009, proposal form for extended warranty and repudiation letter (paper Nos. 4/1 to 4/8 on the District Forum’s record). In service history, it is mentioned (paper No. 4/2 on the District Forum’s record) that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of dealer for fourth free service, when the vehicle had already completed 34,882 kms. In this service history dated 16.1.2009, the dealer has mentioned that engine oil, fuel filter has not been replaced on customer’s request. It is very strange that the vehicle brought for fourth free service on 16.1.2009, but the customer/owner of the vehicle refused to replace the fuel filter. Rather in the consumer complaint in para No. 11A, the complainant-respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that the basis for repudiation of claim by the opposite party No. 3-appellant is wrong. The service history prepared by the opposite party No. 1-dealer is arbitrary and there is no signature of respondent No. 1 on this service history. Therefore, service history prepared by the dealer is not admissible evidence. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2-respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed proposal form as well as policy booklet of Global Administration Services Pvt. Ltd. (paper Nos. 21/1 and 21/2 on the District Forum’s record). Proposal form was filled on 25.7.2007 for 18 months extended warranty in addition to the manufacturer’s warranty. According to the proposal form, this policy will expire on completion of three years from the date of purchase or 1,50,000kms., whichever is earlier. On page No. 5, there is a condition of policy that the vehicle must be serviced by the dealer in accordance with the vehicle manufacture’s service schedule and the service must consist of (1) change engine oil and filter; (2) check oil levels in the gear box; (3) check coolant level and check timing belt etc.
<

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

br />9. In repudiation letter, the opposite party No. 3-appellant has mentioned that oil was changed, service not done on 40,000kms. as per the service history and not even at the time of claim, hence, this claim cannot be paid. As the respondent No. 1-complainant has mentioned in para No. 11 of the consumer complaint that service history prepared by the dealer is arbitrary, which is not signed by the respondent No. 1-complainant. We have already mentioned above that owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to change or replace engine oil, fuel filter when the vehicle was brought on 16.1.2009 for fourth free service. In this way, we are in agreement with the respondent No. 1 that service history prepared by the dealer is arbitrary and prepared with some mala fide intentions, which is not signed by the owner/respondent No. 1. As the vehicle was under extended warranty given by the appellant-opposite party No. 3, which was valid upto 24.5.2010. In this way, the appellant-opposite party No. 3-Global Administration Services Pvt. Ltd. is responsible to pay the claim amount. 10. Thus, we are of the view that the District Forum has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference and the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the District Forum,Nainital in consumer complaint No. 155 of 2009 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
O R