KRISHNA AUTO SALES vs Ind -Swift Laboratories Ltd.

IN this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 3.3.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'') in (Appeal No. 464 of 2010).

FACTS in brief are that Respondent/Complainant had purchased a Skoda vehicle for being used by Sh. Subodh Gupta, Member Executive Board for his personal use from M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Limited (who was Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum) on 27.7.2005 for a total price of Rs. 10,95,500/ -. The said vehicle was got serviced from the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2 (Authorized Service Station) of Opposite Party No. 1 on 24.10.2008 with meter reading as 87,700 Kms. It is stated that petitioner changed oil filter, fuel filter weight balance, bulb etc. and nothing else was notified by its engineer. It is stated that Toothed Time Belt needs a check up when vehicle had covered 90,000 Kms. and would require a replacement, if so required. Thereafter, paid service was got done on 24.2.2009 at 96,605 Kms. from the petitioner. Its engineers informed that Toothed Timing Belt needs replacement but was not replaced on 24.2.2009 due to non -availability of the belt with it. However, complainant was advised that vehicle can still be used for some more time as they did not foresee any immediate problem and was asked to check with them after 15 days. However, the said belt was not available in the workshop. It is stated that on 31st March, 2009, the vehicle suddenly stopped on the main road of Ramgarh -Mubarakpur and was then towed to the service station of the petitioner, who found that the Timing Toothed Belt kit had gone out of order. It is alleged that it was the duty of the service engineers of the petitioner, to inform that the belt needed replacement when vehicle was serviced by them on 24.10.2008 at 87,700 Kms. as per the Service Manual and instructions contained therein. Thus, respondent had suffered tension and mental agony due to the attitude of the petitioner. Thus, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T, Chandigarh (for short, ''District Forum'') seeking following reliefs; "i) Replace the belt of the car and deliver the same to the complainant company immediately without payment of any repair charges.

ii) To pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards mental agony and harassment.

iii) To pay Rs. 21,000/ - as litigation expenses."

Petitioner in its written statement has taken a preliminary objection that car in question was purchased in July,2005 and the manufacturer has given the warranty for a period of two years, i.e., upto July, 2007. Therefore, present case is liable to be dismissed as the claim of the complainant is barred by warranty period. Further, deficiency alleged, as it has been made on the basis of complaint does not come under the warranty period.

ON merits, it is stated that vehicle in question was got serviced by it at 47,115 Kms. on 01.06.2007. Subsequently, on 19.3.2008 when it had covered 72,243 Kms. Later on the vehicle was got serviced at 87,770 Kms. It is stated that respondent was advised to park the vehicle at their parking place and was also told, that as and when the timing belt is made available by the petitioner, the same will be supplied for replacement. However, petitioner never advised the respondent that vehicle can be used for some more time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part

DISTRICT Forum vide order dated 22.11.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner; "i) To Refund the amount of Rs. 1,16,903/ - being the cost of replacing the timing tooth belt kit, in full, to the Complainant.

ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - for causing harassment and financial losses to the Complainant.

iii) To pay litigation expenses Rs. 7,000/ - to the Complainant."

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide its impugned order and awarded litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/ - to the respondent.

HENCE , this revision.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that warranty period of two years expired on 26.07.2007. Thus, contractual liability enjoined by the warranty card also expired. Thereafter, if any part of vehicle goes out of order, it means that it is due to normal wear and tear. It is further submitted that vehicle was got serviced from the Petitioner on 24.2.2009 when it had covered 96,605 Kms. At that time, petitioner informed the respondent that Timing Belt of the vehicle needed replacement. Therefore, petitioner advised the respondent not to run the car any further and park it, since spare timing tooth belt was not in stock and had to be imported from Czechoslovakia. But respondent kept on running the car till March 31,2009, when it suddenly stopped and had to be towed to the garage of the petitioner, where it was found that timing tooth belt had gone out of order as apprehended. At that time, odometer reading showed that the car had travelled 98,500 Kms, which means respondent had run the car for another 2000 Kms. against advice of the petitioner''s engineers. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of petitioner.

ON the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that on 31st March, 2009 vehicle suddenly stopped on the main road of Ramgarh -Mubarakpur. It was towed to the service station of the petitioner, who found that the timing toothed belt kit had gone out of order. Thus, it was the duty of the service engineers of the petitioner to inform the respondent that belt needed replacement, when vehicle was serviced by them on 24.10.2008 at 87,700 Kms.

IT is an admitted case of both the parties that the car in question was purchased by the complainant on 27.7.2005 and the warranty period was of two years. The complaint has been filed after expiry of the warranty period. The main plea of the complainant is that as per the Service Manual and Instructions contained therein Toothed Timing Belt needs replacement after the vehicle had covered a distance of 90,000 Kms.. It is the case of the petitioner that Toothed Time Belt needed check up when the vehicle had covered a distance of 90,000 Kms. and needed the replacement, if required. After the car had covered a distance of 96,605 Kms, complainant had got paid service done on 24.02.2009. However, Timing Belt needed replacement at that time but the same was not replaced due to non -availability of the Belt and the complainant was advised by the Petitioner''s Engineers that the vehicle can still be used for some more time as they do not foresee any immediate problem. However, on 31st March, 2009, vehicle suddenly stopped as the Toothed Timing Belt had gone out of order.

IT is further case of the petitioner that it was the duty of the Service Engineers of the Petitioner to inform the complainant that Belt needed replacement when vehicle had covered a distance of 87,700 Kms.

COMPLAINANT has not placed any document on record to support his case that it was the duty of the Service Engineers of the Petitioner to inform the complainant to get the Toothed Timing Belt replaced at 87,700 Kms. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record the complete copy of the Manual of Instructions issued by the Petitioner. It is complainant''s own case that Timing Toothed Belt was not available with the Petitioner and complainant was advised not to run car any further. However, as per complainant''s own case, that despite such advise the vehicle had covered a distance of 96,605 Kms, which is much beyond 90,000 Kms. Therefore, Timing Belt of the Vehicle has gone out of order due to negligence of the complainant itself and no blame can be laid at the door of the petitioner. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner at all in this case. Both the Fora below have committed grave error in allowing the complaint of the respondent. Accordingly, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below. Consequently, complaint filed by the respondent stand dismissed.

NO order as to cost.