KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.259/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED:19.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.174/2013 of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(byAdv. Faizal P. Mukkam)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Ajith S.)

(by Adv. Frijo K. Sundaram)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.174/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short).  The 1^st respondent is the complainant before the District Forum and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party.  As per the order appealed against, the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant and the 2^nd respondent herein, jointly and severally, to replace the diesel gauge assembly unit and to pay a further amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation, together with an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as costs to the complainant.  The order has been directed to be complied with, within thirty days of receipt of a copy of the order.  The parties shall be referred to herein, in accordance with their status before the District Forum.

          2.       According to the complainant he had purchased a Toyota Etios car from the 1^st opposite party on 21.11.2012.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car and the 1^st opposite party is the dealer.  The diesel gauge cable of the car was not functioning and therefore the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the authorised service station of the 1^st opposite party at Cherkkala, Kasaragod.  But, the fault was not rectified.  The vehicle then had to be taken to the service station of the 1^st opposite party at Kannur on 25.04.2013.  The 1^st opposite party retained the vehicle in his workshop for ten days and returned the same to the complainant without rectifying the defects.  The Service Engineer of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the diesel gauge cable of the car was cut and the entire diesel gauge assembly unit should be replaced, for which the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand).  According to the complainant, the defect was not caused due to mishandling by him but, due to sub-standard material of the gauge cable, which is a manufacturing defect.  Since the vehicle had warranty, the opposite parties were liable to rectify the defects at their own cost, without demanding money from the complainant.  Though the complainant caused a registered notice dated 25.05.2013 to be issued to the opposite parties, they did not comply with his demands.  According to them, it was due to rat bite that the wire was cut.  They also compelled the complainant to claim the expenses from the Insurance Company by preferring a false claim.  The action of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing the complaint.

          3.       The opposite parties appeared on receiving notice and filed detailed versions.  According to the 1^st opposite party the averments in the complaint were all false and baseless.  The vehicle had no manufacturing defect.  The diesel gauge cable of the vehicle was broken due to rat bite, which shows mishandling of the vehicle.  The entire wire unit has to be changed to avoid any further damage, breakdown or fire threats.  The said facts were informed to the complainant on his first visit itself but the complainant insisted that it should be done under warranty.  The said work cannot be done under warranty since it was the result of improper maintenance.  They denied that there was deficiency of service on their part.

          4.       The 2^nd opposite party manufacturer submitted that they are a leading manufacturing company in India, known for their quality and reliable products.   According to them, they believed in the philosophy of customer trust and provided the best for their customers.  They used only high quality products and parts of IP wiring which connect the diesel gauge had been bitten by rats and was damaged.  The fact was informed to the complainant.  The warranty does not cover the damage caused to the IP wiring harness due to rat bite because it falls under what is not covered by the warranty.  It is beyond the control of the manufacturer and no expert evidence is on record stating that the damage was caused due to manufacturing defect.  Since the IP wiring was damaged due to external factors, the warranty does not cover such damages.  In the absence of any inherent manufacturing defects, there is no question of replacing the diesel gauge/IP wiring harness free of cost.  Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       Parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1.  Exhibits A1 to A5 documents were marked on his side.  On the side of the opposite parties DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibit B1 document was marked.  After the close of evidence, both parties were heard and by the order appealed against, the District Forum allowed the complaint.

          6.       According to the counsel for the appellant, order of the District Forum is wrong in law and is liable to be set aside.  The District Forum has not considered and decided whether the diesel gauge cable was substandard or not.  The District Forum has not considered whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  In the absence of any expert opinion, it cannot be ascertained whether the diesel gauge cable was made of substandard materials or not.  The District Forum ought to have held that the damage was caused by external force and therefore not covered by the warranty.  In the absence of any evidence to establish the manufacturing defects alleged the District Forum was wrong in allowing the complaint.  The District Forum has not ascertained the actual cause for the damage.  According to the learned counsel, the car had run only 300km in five months.  Therefore, it must have remained parked most of the time.  In such circumstances, the possibility of rat entry cannot be ruled out.

          7.       Per contra, the counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that there was no mishandling of the car by the complainant at any time, as alleged.  It was a brand new car which had covered only a distance of 300km and was covered by the warranty offered by the opposite parties.  The diesel gauge cable of the car was found to be cut by the appellant’s service personnel when it was taken to them with a complaint that the diesel gauge was not functioning.  According to the learned counsel, the theory of rat bite was invented by the appellant at a later stage to wriggle out of their liability to repair the car under the warranty conditions.  The case of rat bite has been rightly rejected by the District Forum.  The District Forum has considered the issues, elaborately and in the proper perspective.  It is therefore contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same in appeal. 

          8.       We have heard the respective counsel elaborately.  We have also perused the lower court records that were called for by us.  We have considered the contentions advanced before us by the rival parties, carefully.  It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was a brand-new car, purchased on 21.11.2012 just five months prior to the date of the trouble.  It was taken to the service station of the appellant with a complaint that the diesel gauge was not functioning.  Initially, it was entrusted to the service centre at Cherkkala, Kasaragod on 10.03.2013.  Since the defect was not rectified, the vehicle was taken to the service centre of the appellant at Kannur on 25.04.2013.  The service engineers there identified the trouble and told the complainant that the diesel gauge cable was cut and that the entire diesel gauge assembly unit would have to be replaced, for which an amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand) was demanded from the complainant.  The case of the appellant is that, the damage to the wire was caused by rat bite and that, such damage caused by external forces would fall outside the scope of the warranty that was offered by the manufacturer.  The complainant wanted the defect to be rectified and the unit to be replaced, without any payment, under warranty. 

9.       As rightly found by the District Forum, the diesel gauge cable is protected by a sealed cover to prevent any external interference with the same.  Therefore, the chances of the cable being damaged or getting cut through rat bite cannot be accepted.   Since it is an admitted case that the diesel gauge cable was found to be cut, keeping in mind the fact that it could be opened only by the service engineers of the appellant, it cannot be said that the complainant was responsible for the damage.  Though the appellant has contended that the damage was caused by rat bite there is no evidence on the said aspect also.  In view of the fact that the diesel gauge cable is protected by a sheath, the chances of damage being caused by rat bite is remote.   As noticed by the District Forum, it is an A/C car covered with mats thereby rendering the chances of entry of rats improbable.  Apart from the above, DW1 has admitted that only one wire among the bunches of wires that were going through was broken.  The fact that only a single wire was cut also renders the case of the appellant that it was due to rat bite, improbable.  The defect had occurred during the warranty period.  We find that the District Forum has considered the issue properly and that the findings in the order under appeal are supported by cogent reasons.

          10.     The 2^nd respondent/manufacturer is a reputed car manufacturer.  The quality of their cars and the materials used by them for the manufacture thereof are claimed to be very high.  However, the possibility of a defect like the one that has come to light in the present case cannot be ruled out.  When such instances are brought to the notice of the manufacturer, it is only appropriate that such defects are gracefully rectified by the manufacturer without resisting the claims of the customers by putting forward untenable contentions, as in the present case.  Obviously for the said reason, the manufacturer has not preferred an appeal in this case though they have also been jointly and severally made liable by the District Forum.  Inasmuch as the manufacturer/2^nd respondent has not challenged the order of the District Forum by filing an appeal, the order has become final and binding with respect to the 2^nd respondent.  For the said reason also, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum or to grant any relief in this appeal.

          For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.  The reliefs granted are also reasonable and do not call for an interference in appeal.  This appeal is therefore dismissed.  No costs.

SL