Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/49

GENERAL MOTORS PVT TD - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.JAYAKRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

V.SANKAR

27 Nov 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.49/13

 

JUDGMENT DATED:27.11.2014

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

 

Vice President (Marketing)

Sales and After Sales,

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,                                       : APPELLANT

6^th floor, Tower, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-110 002.

 

(By Adv: M/s Shankar & S.Reghukumar))

 

            Vs.

 

1. A.Jayakrishnan @ Animon,

S/o Unni, Nandanam House,

Temple Road, Thodupuzha Village,

Thodupuzha.

 

(By Adv: Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)

 

1. German Motors,

Chungam Junction, West Hill,                                        : RESPONDENTS

Calicut-673 005.

 

1. Geeyem Motors (Pvt)Ltd.,

11/336, NH-47 Bye Pass,

Nettoor.P.O, Cochin-682 304.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.500/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 22, 2012 directing the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle with a new one alternatively to refund the price of the vehicle after deducting 20%.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

On June 30, 2008 complainant purchased a Chevrolet Captiva Car from the second opposite party which was manufactured by the first opposite party for Rs.18,10,007/-.  The registration number of the car was No.KL-38-7999.  After the vehicle has plied 15000 Kms the inner pump of diesel tank got damaged.  At 37000 Kms there was leak of coolant and the vehicle was garaged for two months for repairs with the 3^rd opposite party.  Again at 46000 Kms clutch fluid leaked but the third opposite party failed to rectify the same.  At present there is leak of the coolant, starting trouble, damage in the front wheel bearing set, damage to the left mirror assembly and there is unusual vibration to the steering wheel when brake is applied.  Admitting the inherent defects of the vehicle second opposite party extended the warranty to 75000 Kms.  Again at 75000 Kms the same problem occurred. The vehicle was entrusted with 3^rd opposite party on 12.8.2010.  Complainant filed the complaint to get the vehicle replaced with a new one or to get refund of its price.  He has also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 

3.      The 1^st opposite party/appellant is Vice President (Marketing), Sales & After Sales General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon.  Second opposite party is the German Motors, Chungam Junction, Calicut.  Third opposite party is the Geeyem Motors, Nettoor, Cochin.  The first opposite party in his version contended thus before the Forum:-  Complainant is barred by limitation.  Second opposite party is the dealer of first opposite party.  The complainant was plying the vehicle for commercial purpose.  Therefore he is not a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Second opposite party had rectified the defects of the car of the complainant and extended its warranty.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party in their version contended thus before the Forum:-  Second opposite party is the dealer of the first opposite party. On 17.6.2009 complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party requesting for service of the vehicle which included replacement of clutch, checking wheel alignment, gear, hazard light horn etc.  At that time vehicle has covered up to 46719 Kms.  On June 20, 2009 3^rd opposite party re-delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  First opposite party has extended the warranty of the vehicle.  The vehicle was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party with several complaints which were rectified by the opposite party.  Car was re-delivered to the complainant on September 12, 2010.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

5.      The expert commissioner was examined as PW1 and his report was marked as Ext.C1.  On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A21 series were marked.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.

6.      On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the defective vehicle to the complainant and directed them to replace the said vehicle with a new one, alternatively to refund the price of the vehicle to the complainant.  The Forum has also ordered the complainant to pay 20% of the value of the vehicle to the opposite parties, as the complainant had used the vehicle for 74263Kms.  The first opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

7.      Heard both the counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

8.      It is admitted that complainant purchased Chevrolet Captiva Car bearing Registration No.KL-38-7999 for Rs.18,10,007/- and that several times it was got repaired by 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant claimed replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price.  From the documents produced by the complainant it is evident that from 12.01.2009 to 12.03.2009 several times the car was got repaired by the 3^rd opposite party and that the car suffered from coolant leakage and other complaints.  The expert commissioner who examined the car and filed the report Ext.C1 has also opined that car has some manufacturing defect.  In such circumstances complainant is entitled to get replacement of the vehicle or to get refund of the price of the vehicle paid by him, as held by the National Commission in Toyotta Kirloskar Motor Ltd. & Another Vs. Jayesh T. Tanna & Another 1(2014) CPJ 162 (NC).  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.  The Forum has ordered replacement of the car with a new one provided the complainant pays 20% of the price of the vehicle.  Forum has also directed alternatively refund of the price of the vehicle to the complainant.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

 

VL.