BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Wednesday, 22nd April 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 43/ 2014
Avulakunta Parvathamma, W/o Abbaiah,
aged 40 years, D.No. 5/239, Dharmapuram,
Kodur town and Mandal,
Kadapa city & District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Jayalakshmi Motors, Rep. by its
General Manager, Subramanyam, D.No. 69-31-8,
Gandhipuram-4, lalchervu Road, Rajamundry-533106.
2. M/s Jayalakshmi Motors, Rep. by its
incharge Venkatesu, D.No. 3-691,
Near Mariyapuram Church, Kadapa – 516003.
3. SML ISUZU Limited, Rep. by its A.P. incharge B. Arupkumar,
Esteem House, D.No. 6-345/20, Dwarakapuri Colony,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082.
4. Chairman, SML ISUZU Ltd., SCO204-205, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh – 160 135. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 15-4-2015 in the presence of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ajay Kumar Veena, Advocate for R1 & R2 and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for R3 & R4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 7,80,000/- towards loss of vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim till realization, to pay Rs. 2,15,000/- towards loss of earnings and mental agony and for deficiency of service by the respondents and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant placed order to respondents 1 & 2 for goods carriage vehicle of chassis 12.25 feet manufactured by respondent No.4 which is distributed by respondent No.1 and an empty cheque was received from complainant. The complainant obtained a loan from Cholamandalam finance and investments, Kadapa for the purpose of purchasing vehicle and handed over a cheque for Rs. 7,80,000/- towards cost of the vehicle to respondent No. 1 and vehicle was delivered with a warranty of 12 months on 13-9-2012 at Kadapa. At the time of delivery the complainant found that the chassis was welded with attachment of 2.25 feet. The same was reported to respondents 1 & 2 and the respondents noticed the same and assured the complainant that they shall replace with new one if any defect arises in future. The complainant’s requirements is not fulfilled and there was no use with the vehicle as the attachment started cracking in the body. Tyres were getting damaged and the body started rusting which is a major defect of chassis. The complainant gave the vehicle for services to the respondent No. 1, but even after services there is no change in its condition and the complainant has to put much more on its service as the repairs costs is more than its earnings.
3. The complainant asked for replacement of vehicle and the respondents had taken vehicle for replacement with new one but they did not replaced the same though they assured that the vehicle was sent to respondent No. 3 for replacement with new one. But did not give new one. The Respondent No. 3 finding cracks on the chassis re-welded the same by covering with iron pieces, but still there is no change in the condition of the vehicle. Again the complainant asked the respondents 1 & 2 for replacement of chassis and provide new vehicle, but they threatened the complainant. Respondent No. 4 also paid deaf ear. The complainant’s livelihood is seriously affected as the vehicle is not in road worthy condition for carrying goods since the back door is opening, when it is going with loads. The battery which is fitted to the vehicle is 8 months old used battery and warranty of the battery was expired on 7-4-2013. Thus all the acts of the respondents 1 to 4 shows that there is deficiency of service. The complainant gave notice on 22-7-2013 to the respondents 1 to 4 for which respondents 1 & 2 gave reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence, complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter and the same was adopted by respondent No. 1. They denied all the allegations of the complainant regarding deficiency of service as pleaded by the complainant and called upon her to prove all of them. It is further contended that the complainant has deputed one Eswariah and he placed order by visiting the premises of respondent No. 1 by paying Rs. 1500/- towards margin money and availed finance from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Thus it is totally false to allege that an empty cheque was issued by the complainant. The said Eswariah for and on behalf of complainant placed order for 10 feet cargo and requested the respondent No. 1 to convert the vehicle chassis for extension of 2 feet more i.e. total 12.25 feet. But they said that the chassis available is only 10 feet and he was advised to contact SMS industries body builders situated at Hyderabad as such the said extension is not made by the respondents. 2.25 feet extension of chassis to the existing 10 feet vehicle was availed by Eswariah and on his entire satisfaction the vehicle was delivered to him and the documents contains signature of Eswariaah only. The vehicle was delivered for four services and the complainant deputed Eswariah, who never dissatisfies with the services rendered by the respondents. The respondents are made honest and sincere efforts to see the necessary repairs. The respondents never threatened nor assured to give new vehicle to the complainant. There was no complaint with regard to battery at any time. The allegations in that regard is false. The cracks may be developed due to the accidents. There is no deficiency of service to the complainant by the respondents, the complainant is not entitled either replacement of new vehicle or refunding of amount. There is no jurisdiction to this forum as all disputes are at Rajahmundry jurisdiction only. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Respondents 3 & 4 filed separate counter denying the allegations in the complaint. Further contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. The complainant filed this complaint with all false allegations. The respondents have delivered 10 feet cargo length half deck supreme model truck to the respondent No. 1. After selling the said vehicle to the complainant, respondents 1 & 2 informed that the chassis was extended 2 feet at the request of complainant. So the respondents 3 & 4 are no way concerned with regard to extension of chassis 2 feet to the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant by the respondents 1 & 2 with high satisfaction of the customer. There are no defects in the vehicle delivered to the complainant. The complainant never complained the defects that availing services of the respondents 1 & 2 about the inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle. So the complainant filed this complaint with all false allegations regarding manufacturing defects, the vehicle of the complainant met with accident and on that he got repairs to that effect from the respondents 1 & 2. The complainant has not approached with clean hands and the claim is not genuine nor bonafide. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
- Whether there is any manufacturing defects to the vehicle delivered to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s claimed against the respondents?
- To what relief?
7. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A12 documents are marked. On behalf of respondents Ex. B1 to B10 documents are marked.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the written arguments filed by complainant.
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is admitted by the respondents that the complainant purchased goods carriage vehicle with chassis of 12.25 feet manufactured by R4 and distributed by R1 in their counter. The document Ex. B1 certificate of registration and Ex. A2 invoice challan proved that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 13-9-2012 for an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- and the vehicle was delivered to complainant.
10. It is the case of complainant that she ordered for goods carriage vehicle with chassis of 12.25 feet whereas the respondents 1 & 2 delivered the chassis of 10 feet goods carriage vehicle by extending chassis 2.25 feet attaching to 10 feet chassis totaling chassis 12.25 feet. According to the complainant the same was brought to the notice of respondents 1 & 2 and they assured that they will look after the problem, if any and delivered the vehicle on 13-9-2012. But the vehicle gave trouble as the attached 2.25 feet get rusted and the tyres are also get crack and the vehicle wheel turning radius was also very less in right side and getting hobbling while the vehicle was with load and in spite of brining the same to the notice of respondents that they have supplied the defective vehicle and they have not replaced the same. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the vehicle was originally with 10 feet chassis manufactured by R4 but it is extended with 2.25 feet length attaching to original 10 feet chassis to meet the requirement of complainant for totaling length of 12.25 feet chassis and it was done at the instance of complainant only and now the complainant cannot question the same but there is no evidence placed by the respondents to prove that the chassis was extended by 2.25 feet from 10 feet at the request of the complainant. As seen from Ex. A2 invoice cum challan order was placed by the complainant to 12.25 feet chassis only and delivered the vehicle to complainant with chassis of 12.25 feet attaching 2.25 feet by extending 10 feet chassis. So the chassis of the vehicle delivered to the complainant is not a brand new one which was intended to be purchase by complainant for Rs. 7,80,000/- under Ex. A2 invoice. The other documents Exs. A3 to A6 shows that the complainant is the owner of the goods carriage vehicle purchased under Ex. A2 on 13-9-2012 and there is warranty of 1 2 months to the vehicle. The defects and not properly functioning vehicle was found by the complainant and brought to the notice of respondents within warranty period and also issued legal notice on 22-7-2013. But the respondents 1 & 2 issued reply notice on 13-8-2013. However, the respondents have not rectified the defects or replaced the vehicle with correct length of chassis to the complainant. The respondents 3 & 4 in their counter admitted that they delivered only a 10 feet cargo length half deck supreme model truck to the respondent No. 1 and they delivered 12.25 feet vehicle to the complainant by extending the chassis by 2 feet. This shows the complainant who intended to purchase 12.25 feet placed order of the R4 company vehicle. But the respondents 1 & 2, who are authorized dealers of respondents 3 & 4 company delivered vehicle manufactured with 10 feet length chassis by attaching 2.25 feet length chassis to the complainant. It is crystal clear that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant by extending chassis by 2.25 feet and not a new chassis as required by the complainant. Further, as seen from job cards dt. 13-9-2012 it is clearly established that wheel turning radius very less in right side, vehicle was severely hobbling while breaking time with load and steering and wheel hobbling. As seen Ex. A2 invoice they fixed price for 12.25 feet chassis and not for 10 feet chassis available with them. So the above circumstances clearly goes to show that the complainant ordered 12.25 chassis vehicle the respondents not supplied the vehicle with 12.25 feet chassis of ne one but they attached 2.25 feet chassis by extending 10 feet chassis. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents for delivering the vehicle under Ex. A2 to the complainant. The complainant also proved that there is hobbling of vehicle and wheel turning radius was very less and the same defects were not rectified by the respondents, in respect of notice issued to them. Since the complainant purchased the vehicle for her livelihood the complainant comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The other contentions of respondents that this forum has no jurisdiction and the chassis was extended by welding of 2.25 feet at the instance of complainant and complaint was filed on false grounds cannot be countenanced as they are baseless. After going through entire material on record and considering submissions made by the complainant counsel and the respondents counsel we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents by delivering substandard vehicle with extended chassis to the complainant which got rusted subsequently and there is also defective wheels which are getting cracks. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of amount apart from some amount for mental agony and costs. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No. 3. In view of the discussion above and the points 1 & 2 findings thereon we hold the complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the respondents. Accordingly, point No. 3 is answered.
12. Point No. 4. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 7,80,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) towards loss of vehicle and they shall also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony and shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 7,80,000/- till realization. The complainant shall return the vehicle purchased by him to the respondents by handing over the same to respondent No.2 at Kadapa under acknowledgement.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 22nd April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 P/c of certificate of registration of vehicle bearing No.AP 05 UTHR 8344 DT.13-9-2012.
Ex.A2 P/c of Invoice cum challan for Rs.7,80,000/- issued by M/s
Jayalakshmi Motors. Dt. 13-9-2012.
Ex.A3 P/c of Form No.22 issued by Manufacturer.
Ex.A4 P/c of insurance cover note issued by Cholamandalam General
Insurance Co.Ltd, dt.12-9-2012 valid from 13-9-2012 to 15-9-2013.
Ex.A5 P/c of Proceedings of registering authority Kadapa dt.15-9-2012.
Ex.A6 P/c of Sale Certificate. Dt.13-9-2012.
Ex.A7 P/c of letter to R4 by the complainant through internet on 20-03-13
Ex.A8 Original receipt issued by the 2nd respondent on 14-3-2013 to
Complainant.
Ex.A9 Office copy of legal notice issued to respondents 1 to 4 with receipts
dt. 22-7-2013.
Ex.A10 Acknowledgements card 2 in numbers.
Ex.A11 Replay notice issued on behalf of R1 and R2, dt.13-8-2013.
Ex. A12 Original 9 nos. phots filed by the complainant.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondentno.2
Ex.B1 Office copy of Vehicle delivery certificate signed by V.Eswaraiah
dt.13-9-2012.
Ex.B2 original Job cards 5 in numbers.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondentno.3 & 4
Ex.B3 P/c of Vehicle delivery certificate dt.13-9-2012.
Ex.B4 P/c of Job card dt.08-10-2012 pertaining to the complainant
at 5103 Kms.
Ex.B5 P/c of Job card dt.15-12-2012 pertaining to the complainant
at 15797 Kms.
Ex.B6 P/c of Job card dt.29-2-2013 pertaining to the complainant
at 26370 Kms.
Ex.B7 P/c of Job card dt.14-3-2013 pertaining to the complainant
at 30500 Kms.
Ex.B8 P/c of Job card dt.18-7-2013 pertaining to the complainant
at 37977 Kms.
Ex.B9 P/c of invoice cum challan dt. 22-9-2012 stands in the name
of A. Geetha.
Ex. B10 P/c of rejection letter dt. 3-7-2013 issued by SSH Engineering
solutions, Tirupati.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri Ajaykumar Veena, Advocate for R1 & R2.
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for R3 & R4.
B.V.P.
