BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.221/2013
(Admitted on 16.08.2013)
Mr. Jude Fugle,
S/o L.A Fugle,
Aged 40 years,
R/at Block No.2,
Telecom Apartments, Attavar,
Mangalore, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri AKK)
VERSUS
1. The Authorized Signatory
Fiat India Automobiles Ltd,
Regd, Office and Factory,
B-19, Ranjangaon MIDC,
Industrial Area, Ranjangaon
Shirur Taluk,
Pune 412 210,
Maharashtra State.
2. Managing Director,
M/s Auto Matrix,
Bejai,
Mangalore 575004.
3. M/s Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd.,
N.H.66, Kulur,
Mangalore 575006,
Rep by its Authorized Signatory.
….........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 & No.3: Ex-parte)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri GMU)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contends he booked with opposite party No.1 in February 2011 for purchase of 2011 model car but on enquiry contrary promise to deliver in one week, opposite party by saying it is out of stock and there will be delay in delivery by taking advantage of complainant persuaded him by misrepresenting about discounts and using unfair trade practices has managed to deliver to complainant the car kept for display for which complainant paid Rs.7,67,931/ its value. However there were numerous defects in the car like diesel leakage of bumper rattling all over interiors of the vehicle hardening of the steering, defective power steering system, defect in the tail lamp, rear wheel sound, steering noise, A/C blower defective etc. etc. He had to take the vehicle on numerous occasions to opposite party No.2. opposite party No.2 had not on several occasions not charged on the work done to the complainants brought vehicle in order to suppress the fact of defective vehicle and placed the vehicle the complainant got issued legal notice to the car i.e. defective vehicle was not complied. The complainant got the vehicle surveyed through IRDA approved qualified and experienced general insurance surveyor and expert Mr. Praveenchandra Sheety on 21.3.2013 who had certified with hence having manufacturing defects. Hence seeks the relief claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party No.2 filed written version. Opposite party No.2 as the dealer of cars manufactured by opposite party No.1 in 2011 and complainant purchased a brand new Fiat Linea Car on 11.4.2011 as alleged is reputed but unfair trade practice alleged is denied. The cheque issued by complainant on 26.2.2011 advance was dishonoured. The complainant purchased car in question with opposite party No.2 gave some deduction in Rs.7,67,931/ to complainant. There was not defects in the complainant’s vehicle as alleged require service were carried out by opposite party No.2. The alleged multiple repairs are denied. Mr Praveenchandra Shetty as expert alleged the free service one of the condition of the opposite party No.2 was required to give free service car on the running of the car up to 75,000 kilo meters. As such opposite party No.2 had given free service in respect of the car. The fact that the complainant being running the vehicle even now for more than 21 extensive indicate manufacturing defect in the complaint hence seeks dismissal.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Jude Fugle filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C26 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Rajaram (RW1) Asst. General Manager, Service Department, Auto Matrix, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4 as detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): Opposite party No. 2 admitted selling the car in question to complainant which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. Hence there is relationship between the parties as consumer and service provider. The numerous questions raised by the complainant in the complaint were disputed by opposite party. Hence there is dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): The ground urged by complainant he was persuaded by opposite party No.2 and purchased 2010 model car though he wanted to purchase 2011 model by giving advance and that opposite party on this count gave discount to complainant. Complainant did admit he took test drive of the vehicle before purchasing it. He also did admission that discount was given by opposite party to complainant’s vehicle purchasing the car hence alleged that he was forced to accept 2010 model.
2. As to allegation about defects in the vehicle sold to complainant by opposite party No.2 the documents produced by complainant mentions nature of complaints made. As seen from the document and even as seen from the allegation of the complaint none of the document shows that the complaints of the nature as to the manufacturing defect. The job card of 11.7.2011 mentions that rattling of the door, water getting into staring on his pulling left and right and of A/C duct not working. This defects as righty pointed out for defense can be best concluded as the result of wear and tear and nothing behind to blame it on the defects in the manufacturing of the vehicle. One of the defects for which the repairs was undertaken as per Ex.C11 dated 22.9.2012 and 12 with bumper point replace bumper etc. are concerned. Mention about flex hose and hose clip small was paid and about replacement of door striker/adjustall doors adjusted paid sum of Rs.165/ and on 13.7.11 under another tax invoice all the repairs the amount paid bills Rs.8,500/ and another invoice of 2.2.12 paid service of total Rs.6,800/ all appears to be due to some accident caused due to certain and he cannot balm on painting etc. on the manufacturing defects. Another invoice of 28.3.12 mentions about the synthetic oil, oil filter and wheel balancing and about wheel alignment and air went control and other servicing works this also cannot to come in our view on as defects to the manufacturers.
3. The document which the complainant reveals to show the manufacturing defect is on a report of an opinion from Praveenchandra Shetty is marked at Ex.C15. This Praveenchandra Shetty as mentioned in his letterhead had as Surveyor/Loss Assessor/Motor. As rightly pointed out for opposite party he cannot be considered as an expert to say whether there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence no evidently value can be attached to Ex.C15 to say that the car has manufacturing defects.
4. That apart as seen from the document produced by complainant he had produced job cards and tax invoice till 22.9.2014. At Ex.C26 the job card ventures glow light comes out it is dated 22.9.14 and the tachometer reads mentions as 43640 Kms as rightly pointed out for opposite party No.2 at no sate of imagination the vehicle sold to complainant to using the vehicle construed and as having run the vehicle at 43640 Kms. as on 22.9.14 can be construed as a defective vehicle.
5. In fact Ex.C25 an tax invoice dated 11.2.15 produced about mentions schedule service, charging for service and A/C gas charging, washing, cleaning engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter, filtering elements, air filter, transmission oil powers steering oil, break premix coolant, emery paper, air filter top cover, fevi qwick small, stud, cleaner wick and a/c gas which are charged on complainant. Ex.C25 shows the date 11.2.2015 shows the mileage as 48098.
6. This would indicate the complainant is regularly using the vehicle and no manufacturing defect was made out to the car.
7. Ex.C24 dated 10.9.2014 the tax invoice mentions certain repairs undertaken and on all the items no amount was collected by opposite party No.2 by mentioning there as goodwill working and the items mentioned are front shock absorber and or elastic pad replace etc. Thus on going through these we are of the opinion that there is no elements which would help the complainant to establishing the manufacturing defects in the car purchased by him from opposite party No.1. Hence complainant failed to prove deficiency in service. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation by president revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Mr. Jude Fugle
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex.C1: Tax invoice dated 27.2.2011 for purchase of above said Car
Ex.C2: Copy of RC of above car
Ex.C3: Job slip dated 30.04.2011
Ex.C4: Tax invoice dated 30.4.2011
Ex.C5: Tax invoice at 03.06.2011
Ex.C6: Job slip dated 2139 Kms
Ex.C7: Job slip dated 11.07.2011
Ex.C8: Tax invoice dated 11.07.2011
Ex.C9: Job slip dated 27.03.2012
Ex.C10: Job slip dated 21.09.2012
Ex.C11: Tax invoice dated 21.09.2012
Ex.C12: Job slip dated 05.10.2012
Ex.C13: Copy of written complaint of the complainant to Opposite party No.2 dated 27.08.2011 with postal Acknowledgement
Ex.C14: Copy of legal notice
Ex.C15: Expert opinion of Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty
Ex.C16: Tax invoice dated 15.07.2013
Ex.C17: Job card dated 28.08.2013
Ex.C18: Tax invoice dated 28.08.2013
Ex.C19: Tax invoice dated 31.08.2013
Ex.C20: Tax invoice dated 08.11.2013
Ex.C21: Job card dated 13.11.2013
Ex.C22: Tax invoice dated 13.11.2013
Ex.C23: Tax invoice dated 11.2.2014
Ex.C24: Tax invoice dated 08.09.2014
Ex.C25: Tax invoice dated 10.02.2014
Ex.C26: Job card dated 22.09.2014
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Rajaram, Asst. General Manager, Service Department, Auto Matrix
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: 19.02.2011: Order form
Ex.R2: 27.02.2011: Duplicate Invoice
Ex.R3: : Statement of Account relating to the sale of car to the complainant
Ex.R4: : Service History of the Car sold to the Complainant
Dated: 23.02.2017 PRESIDENT
