PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 8/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sandeep Singh Walia,

S/O- Late Manjieet Singh,

R/O- Bareipali, Ps- Khetrajpur

Dist- Sambalpur.                                                           ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Customer Service Manager,

Jalan Automobiles Ashok Leyland, Near Bus Stand,

Remed, National Highway 6,

Ps-Ainthapali, Dist- Sambalpur.

2. M.D., Ashok Leyland  Limited,

No1, Sadar Patel Road,

Guindy, Chennai-600032

3. Zonal Head, Ashok Leyland Zonal Office, Kolkata,

Acropolis, 8^th Floor 1858, Rajdanga Main Road,

Kolkata-700107.                                        …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. P.Pujari, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :-         Sri. P.K.Bohidar, Advocate & Associates

Date of Filing:09.02.2021,Date of Hearing :03.04.2023, Date of Judgement : 23.05.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant purchased Ashok Leyland Ltd vehicle baring Regd. No.OD-15M-4006 after   availing   loan from Indus Ind Bank Ltd, Sambalpur. The vehicle registered on 22.11.2018. The O.P.No.1 is the service centre, O.P.No.2 the Managing Director of the Company and O.P.No.3 Zonal head of the Company

On 20.10.2020 when heating problem arose in engine complaint made before O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 informed that the gas kit is broken The vehicle was repaired with 6 nos. of liner, Piston ring 2 nos. of connecting rod, head gas kit and engine oil and Rs.45,000/- was charged from the complainant and  vehicle was delivered on 2.11.2020 . The Warranty of the engine remains for 2 years or up to 2,00,000/- Kms running which ever is earlier. Although both the conditions are not expired warranty was there, the O.P.No.1 charged Rs.45,000-/. Further the Opp.Party No.1 assured there will be no any engine problem but on 9.12.2020 after running 545 Km near Rairakhol some sound started from the engine. The O.P.No1 was informed, who deputed a technician and found the near hub anchor bolt was missing and fitted an anchor bolt. The O.P.No.1 remained silent how the bolt was missing if repaired properly earlier.

On 9.12.2020 the vehicle got break down in Keonjhar. On complaint to O.P.No.1 the Keonjhar workshop was referred. The technician went to breakdown spot and informed that Engine Block burst at 6^th number lines. On suggestion of O.P.No.1 the vehicle was towed to workshop after spending Rs. 35,000/- through crane arrangement from Keonjhar to Sambalpur. The O.P.No.1 assured to provide extended warranty policy (EWP) as the engine was faulty and suggested to wait for a week. On 23.12.2020 after contact, the O.P.No.1 informed to wait for two more weeks for coverage of warranty. The O.p.no.1 handed over a failure report.

On 12.01.2021  the O.P.No1 handed over a letter to the complainant t stating details of repair dated 02.11.2020 and informed the reason for non-coverage of warranty, Failure due to over speeding and asked the complainant  to pay Rs.1,28,290/- for  repair of the vehicle.

For manufacturing defects and deficiency in service the complainant sustained loss of Rs.5,000/- per day, action of O.Ps are arbitrary and it is unfair trade practice.

2. The O.P.No.1 in its version submitted that the vehicle No.OD-15M-4006 was repaired by the O.P.No.1 and due to over speed of the new vehicle engine was heating. The warranty period is 2 years or within 2 .00 lakhs Km. running which ever is earlier. The vehicle was sold on 26.09.2018. Hearting problem came on 20.10.2020. The warranty was over on 25.09.2020, accordingly the complainant was to pay the repairing expenses. There was no any manufacturing defect and extended warranty is available under warranty period. There is no any deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The driver has violated the norms of extended warranty. The O.P.No.1 is not liable for compensation, damage, back interest, cost etc. The valuation is not proper and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The O.P.No.2 and 3 in their version submitted that they are the manufactures and O.P.No.1 is the dealer. The complaint is not maintainable as there is no manufacturing nor deficiency in service. The claim is vexatious and the complainant is not a consumer. The vehicle is used for commercial purpose. There is no any privacy to the sale of the vehicle in dispute. The answering O.Ps cited, Tata Motors Ltd- Versus- Antonia Paulo Vaz and others Civil No.574/2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant has misused the vehicle and to patch his lacuna filed this complaint.
4. Perused the documents filed by the complainant

1. R.C.Book of OD15M-4006
2. Letter dtd. 23.12.2020 and 12.1.2021.

The O.Ps filed following documents

1. Invoice dated 14.11.2020 issued by the O.P.No.1
2. Job card SQT 19662021000556 dtd.09.01.2021.
3. Free and paid service chart
4. Service history of the vehicle from 03.10.2018 to 03.11.2020.

5. From the documents filed by the complainant it reveals that on 26.09.2018 the vehicle No.OD-15M 4006 was sold to the complainant by O.P.No.1 and from time to time free service and warranty order has been made. As per complaint of the complainant heating of engine problem started on 20.10.2020. So it is beyond warranty period 2 years. The Complainant has not filed the sale letter of the vehicle and made complaint against the Opp.Parties. As defects arose beyond 2 years warranty period, the payment take n by the O.P.No.1, Rs.45,000/- for release of the vehicle is proper.

The allegation about the incident dated 9.12.2020 about the breakdown of the numbers liner etc. towing of the vehicle from Keonjhar to Sambalpur,. The incident shall not cover the extended warranty policy (EWP) as the repair work is post warranty period. Accordingly, the expenses are due to the complaint and the Opp.Parties are not liable for the same.

The payment made for Rs.1,28,290/- by  the complainant to O.P.No.1, it is specifically mentioned that “ failure due to over speeding can not considered under EWP as per investigation next cause with error code 0219, RPM-3300” vide letter dtd. 12.1.2021. The O.P. No.1 has informed the complainant to start the repair work.

From scan tool report it reveals that the RPM was 3300 and it is due to mishandling of the driver due to over speed and it can not be termed any manufacturing defect. Further there is no any allegation of the complainant during the warranty period.

From service history of the vehicle it is clear that there is no any deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1.

          Accordingly, it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed on contest against the Opp.Parties. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for. No cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 23^rd day of May, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.