Ind -Swift Laboratories Ltd. vs Skoda Auto India Private Limited And Ors.

BEING aggrieved, Petitioner/Complainant has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against order dated 18.5.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 678 of 2009. Brief facts are, that on 16.9.2005 Petitioner had purchased a Skoda Octavia Biltz Rideer 1.8 TPI Car from Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 for the personal use of Sh. Vishal Nayar, Vice -President Commercial of Petitioner''s Company. From the very beginning, car had some engine problems for which repeated requests were made to Respondent No. 2, the authorized dealer of Respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1. However, false assurance was given that vehicle will run smoothly in future. Every time the vehicle was repaired by the service engineer of respondent No. 2, it kept facing technical problems continuously without any permanent cure. On 24.11.2008, the vehicle was got serviced from respondent No. 2 with meter reading as 80521 Kms. This service was also done in time, as per the service record. In this paid service, Oil Filter and Ignite. Coil were changed, besides engine oil and injector clearing was done. Nothing else was noticed by the engineers nor petitioner was informed that the Timing Toothed Belt Kit, needs a checkup when the vehicle has covered 90,000 kms. and it would require replacement. On 30.1.2009, Sh. Vishal Nayyar was on his way to the office in village Jawaharpur, Derabassi, when the vehicle suddenly stopped on the main highway. Thereafter, vehicle was towed to the service station of respondent No. 2 and it was found that the Timing Toothed Belt kit had gone out of order beyond repair. Due to this reason, other parts of the car were also damaged. The cost of the repair of the car was about Rs. 1,20,000. The Timing Toothed Belt got damaged at 85,000 kms. only. It was the duty of the Service Engineers of respondent No. 2, to inform the Petitioner about replacement of the belt when vehicle was serviced on 24.11.2008 at 80,521 kms. However, no information was given to the petitioner, either on 24.11.2008 or on the previous date of service on 9.7.2008, which was done at 63,058 kms. The car went out of order due to the negligence of Service Engineers of respondent No. 2 and also due to the inferior quality of timing belt, for which petitioner was forced to make payment Rs. 1,19,439 without any fault on his part. It is further stated that the car remained parked for about one month in the service station of respondent No. 2. Due to this, Mr. Vishal Nayyar was unable to attend to his official duties and company suffered huge losses. This act of respondents amount to deficiency in service. Hence, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.

REPLY was filed by respondent No. 2 which was also adopted by respondent No. 1. In the reply, it is stated that car in question was purchased on 16.9.2005. Respondent No. 1 has given the warranty for the period of two years i.e. upto 15.9.2007. Since, complaint was filed on 17.4.2009, therefore it is liable to be dismissed as the claim of Complainant is barred by the warranty period. It is further stated that car in question had been mishandled, as it had met with accidents for about six times till the covering of 70,974 Kms. Further, car had to be parked only for the purpose of repairs and during this period, car obviously cannot be used for driving. Therefore, there was no deficiency in rendering the services on the part of the respondents. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT -II, Chandigarh (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 6.11.2009, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to make following payments to the petitioner: "(i) Refund the amount of Rs. 1,19,439 representing repairs/replacements of spare parts including Timing Tooth Belt Kit, in full, to the Complainant.

(ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for causing mental agony, harassment and pain.

(iii) To pay litigation expenses Rs. 5,000 to the complainant."

BEING aggrieved, both respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum.

NOW petitioner has filed the present revision petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Timing Toothed Belt broke down before 90,000 kms. However, respondents did not inspect the vehicle as per the Service Schedule/Instruction Manual. Therefore, due to the deficiency in services, the Timing Toothed belt broke down in the moving vehicle which also damaged the other parts of the engine. Hence, respondents are liable to refund the amount charged by them towards repairs/replacements of spare parts.

ON the other hand, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent, that vehicle in question was got serviced by the Petitioner''s Company to its satisfaction. Moreover, the vehicle had met with accidents six times. Further, claim of the petitioner is barred by the warranty period. As such, there is no deficiency in service. Lastly, it is submitted that instructions contained in the Manual are only advisory to the customers and not mandatory. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner/complainant on 16.9.2005 and the warranty was for a period of two years, i.e., up to 15.9.2007. Therefore, at the time of accident the vehicle in question was not in warranty period. Respondent in its written statement have taken the stand that vehicle of the petitioner has met with accident for about 6 times till covering the distance of 70,974 kms.

PETITIONER for the reasons best known to it has not mentioned these material facts in its complaint and have concealed the same. It is well settled that a litigant should approach the judicial Fora with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. Since, petitioner has tried to mislead the Consumer Fora and have concealed the material facts, its complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.

BE that as it may, petitioner has no placed on record any document to show that it was the duty of the respondent or its engineers to inform the petitioner that Timing Toothed Belt Kit of vehicle needed replacement at 90,000 Kms. It was for the petitioner who was the user of the vehicle, to have taken necessary steps for replacement of Timing Toothed Belt of his vehicle, if required at appropriate time. The initial onus was upon the petitioner to show that Timing Toothed Belt Kit required checkup, when vehicle had covered a distance of 90,000 kms. In the present case, Timing Toothed Belt Kit got damaged when the vehicle had covered the distance of 96,000 kms. Thus, it was the petitioner who was negligent in not taking proper care of its car.

THEREFORE , we hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The present revision petition having no merits stand dismissed. No order as to cost.