Persisting Defects in Lancers Cedia Car Despite Service, Delhi District Commission Holds Excel Motors Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Excel Motors, Mitsubishi's authorised Service Centre liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the vehicle despite Complainant paying Rs. 3,44,000/-. The bench directed the service centre to refund Rs.3,44,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by it. Brief Facts: Capital Builders (“Complainant), a real estate developer, purchased a Lancers Cedia Car for Rs. 9,52,650/- from Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, a company engaged in manufacturing and assembling automobiles. Shri Virat Manchanda, an authorized representative of the Complainant, used the vehicle. Allegedly, the car's engine got damaged due to rain, prompting the Complainant to send it to Excel Motors (“Service Centre”), the authorized service centre of Mitsubishi. After initial assurances and a replacement, the car faced repeated issues during test drives. Subsequently, a new engine was installed, and the Complainant paid Rs. 3,44,573/-. However, the vehicle continued to experience problems, including low fuel efficiency and high RPM. Subsequently, the Complainant requested for repairs, but the car remained in the possession of the service centre. The Complainant made several communications with the service centre to repair the car but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – X, Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Mitsubishi and its service centre. In response, Mitsubishi claimed that the Complainant initially purchased the Lancer Cedia Car from Excel Motors, and used it smoothly for about six years. After the warranty period, the Complainant requested a change of engine, which was done on 19.9.2012. It argued that the vehicle covered 5000 km in 4 months, and as per the job card, it had driven over 1,00,000 km before the engine replacement. It denied the privity of contract with the Complainant, emphasizing the need for expert evidence to prove manufacturing defects. The service centre didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant requested Mitsubishi to remove the disputed car, stating it was a piece of junk with no utility. It noted that despite the engine and parts replacement, the vehicle was returned to the workshop with problems with engine oil light and engine RPM. Subsequently, the vehicle returned to the workshop again due to starting problems, resulting in the replacement of the crank angle sensor. Despite these efforts, the District Commission noted that the vehicle failed to run even 1000 km in a month. It held that despite paying Rs. 3,44,000/- for repair by the Complainant, the vehicle continued to malfunction. Therefore, the District Commission held the service centre liable for deficiency in services Consequently, the District Commission directed the service centre to refund Rs. 3,44,000/- with 7% interest from the date of repair until realization. It also directed the service centre to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, agony, and physical inconvenience, and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: M/s Capital Builders vs Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

Persisting Defects in Lancers Cedia Car Despite Service, Delhi District Commission Holds Excel Motors Liable

Smita Singh

Tags