KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 704/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 10.5.12
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit,
3rd Floor, Tutus Towers, N.H. Byepass Road,
Padivatom, Cochin – 682 024.
(By Adv. M/s Menon and Menon)
2. R.F. Motors Private Ltd., : APPELLANTS
Madakathanam P.O., Vengalloor,
Thodupuzha.
Vs.
Dr.A.P.Philip, S/o Philipose,
Aruthamal House (Alanjipuram House),
Kochera.P.O, Vandanmedu, : RESPONDENT
Idukki District.
(By Adv. V.S. Bhasurendran Nair)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 209/08 dated : 11.07.2011. The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant respectively.
2. The appellant prefers this appeal from the direction that the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same classification to the complainant by taking back the defective old one or pay the cost of the vehicle paid by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of the petition within one month of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest p.a from the date of default.
3. In short, the complainant who purchased an Indigo CS LS BS III car from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.4,43,933/- on 15.09.2008. On 14.10.08 while the complainant and his wife were travelling in the vehicle from their house to college, at about 9.30 am when the car reached at padamugham near Murikkassery, immediately both the steering and break control of the care were lost. The complainant and his wife had a miraculous escape from a fatal accident. All on a sudden, the complainant contacted RF motors; a mechanic from the authorized workshop of the opposite party came over there at 5 pm. The mechanic after inspection told that the breakdown was due to the slipping of ‘alternator belt’ which controls both the steering and break, there was also leakage of power steering fluid at that time. The opposite party cured the mistake and assured that there would not be any complaint in the future, even though the complainant requested for the replace of the vehicle, the car met with same problem at KSEB Junction, Kattappana. Fortunately complainant and his wife escaped from another fatal accident. The opposite party took the car to their workshop on intimation. The car has got mechanical defect inherent in it. So the future use of this vehicle would cause damage to their life. Hence the complaint is filed for getting replacement of the vehicle.
4. The 1st opposite party contended that the petition is not maintainable as per the CP Act. They alleged that when the complainant took his vehicle to the service centre by the opposite party at Kattappana, they had looked to the complainant and noticed that the complaint was caused because an external object namely a small branch of a tree trapped between the alternator belt from under side. The service centre has apparently rectified the complaint up to the satisfaction of the complainant. After that on 06.10.2008 when the car was taken to the 2nd opposite party for first free service at 1371 kilometre, the complainant did not have any complaint of the nature referred to above. The allegation that the car met with same problem at KSEB Junction Kattappana is not known to this opposite party. The 2nd opposite party collected the car from the authorized service station Kattappana, conducted a thorough inspection at its service centre in Thodupuzha and identified the problem. The problem was really minor and was due to small leak from the power steering fluid hose due to mounting clip become loose. The fluid leakage had caused the belt to slip. The 2nd opposite party replaced the damaged parts, tested the complainant’s car thoroughly for its road worthiness. There are no damages in using the car as alleged. They also offered a free service contract for two years or 20,000 kilometers and complete exterior body polishing. The opposite party is ready to supply the car at his residence, but the complainant is not ready to receive the same. Hence there is no deficiency in the part of the 1st opposite party.
5. The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party. The complainant informed that the car had broken down and wanted to know where the nearest Tata authorized service centre was. The second accident was also not known to this 2nd opposite party. On 06.10.2008 the car was brought to the 2nd opposite party’s office at Thodupuzha for first free service at 1371KM. At that time the complainant did not have any complaint was alleged. The car was duly serviced and delivered. On 31.10.08 the vehicle was collected by this opposite party from Tata authorized service station at Kattappana. They have identified the cause of the complaint. The small leak from the power steering fluid hose due to the mounting clip becoming loose. The opposite party cured the defects thoroughly. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant is not ready to receive the vehicle with devour and dishonest intention till this date, inspite of repeated offers of the opposite party to deliver the car to the complainant’s residence. So there is no deficiency from this opposite party.
6. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PWs1 to 4 and Exts. P1 to P9 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts. R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
7. The Forum below considered the entire evidence and heard in detail both parties and found that there was an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the part of the opposite party because they have supplied a defect car, and the defect was repeated after repairs of the opposite party. The second incident was caused within 2500 Kms. Major kilometers were covered by shifting the vehicle from workshops to workshops of the opposite party. As per Ext.P8 and Ext.R1 reply notices issued by the opposite party, it is admitted that the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant due to the repeated failure of the newly purchased vehicle and they also preferred a settlement by giving a free service contract for 2 years or 20000 Kms as a goodwill gesture and happy to deliver the vehicle back to the complainant’s home. But the complainant was not ready to receive the vehicle because he was in fear of the possibility of the accident again. So it is proper to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle of the same classification to the complainant or pay the cost of the vehicle paid by the complainant. As per the complainant he had paid an amount of Rs.4,43,933/- for purchasing the vehicle and it is not disputed by the opposite party.
8. The Forum below passed the above impugned order and the appellants prefer this appeal before this commission.
9. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant and the respondent/complainant are present and argued their cases in detail before this commission. The counsel for the appellant argued that the defect is very minor and is also repairable. It is not a manufacturing defect. He contended that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove that these defects were burden apart from the manufacturing defects. In the circumstance, the order passed by the Forum below to replace the new vehicle is totally illegal and against the provisions of law and evidence. But the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that once he repaired again. Again the problem was repeated. They purchased a new vehicle by spending the huge amount for the purpose of using the vehicle with smoothly and trouble free. But it affected the mental peace. They are college lectures and this car is nothing but a dream of them. Even there where ever so many new generation cars offered with so many perks, attractive discounts and other schemes. The complainant selected this vehicle under the impression that this is a suitable and reliable vehicle for the family use. But the acts of the opposite parties are nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. This commission is not having any hesitation to accept the view taken by the Forum below. The order passed by the Forum below is reasonable and it is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The vehicle involved the vehicle is brand new and covered a very huge kilometers. It is the liability of the manufacturer to replace the vehicle. We uphold the order passed by the Forum below. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in this order passed by the Forum below. But we decide to modify the result portion of the order passed by the Forum below.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and directed the 1st opposite party to pay the price of the vehicle Rs.4,43,933/- to the complainant which paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay a costs of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within 1 month from the receipt of the copy of the judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a from the date of the default.
The points of the appeal discussed and answered one by one. No cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
Da
