Chandigarh: Consumer commission directs firm to pay up for selling defective car

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised a car company for selling a car with manufacturing defects.
Shabnam Aggarwal and Kiran Aggarwal from Sector 4 filed a case against Krishna Auto Sales, Chandigarh; Skoda Auto Volkswagen, Pune, including its managing director and directors.
The women alleged that they bought a Skoda Rapid Ambition 1.0 TSI MT Petrol car from Krishan Auto Sale after paying Rs.9,69,000 in February 2021.
By July 202, the car started having various issues. The issues were reported to the opposite party. After repairs the same problems continued to surface, resulting in a lot of problems for the complainant in day-to-day commute. The car was under repair nine times within a span of four months. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the women moved to the commission.
Krishna Auto Sales stated that the services which are required to be rendered to the complainants have been performed with due diligence and promptness, therefore, it is not deficient in providing the services to the complainants at any point of time. Whenever the car has been brought to the dealership it has been delivered in fault-free condition after doing the needful.
Škoda company and their directors and MD in their joint reply denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as there is no expert opinion on record.
It is stated that the allegations of the complainant are not supported by any evidence. “The complainant has not brought any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove that there was a manufacturing defect. Furthermore, all the repairs were conducted after consultation with the complainant and after getting his approval. Denying any deficiency on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been made,” they contended.
The commission observed: “We are of the view that the car suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and was required to be replaced with a new one or refund of the price of the same was required to be made by the OP after deducting depreciation amount. However by not replacing the car or making refund of the price of the car the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service and are indulged in unfair trade practice.”
It directed the opposition parties to refund the invoice price of the car after a deduction of 5% amount therefrom towards depreciation of the car, with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the instant complaint till onwards.
It also directed them to pay ₹25,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and to pay ₹10,000 as costs of litigation.