Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/120

FORD INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABDUL RASHEED.P.P.K - Opp.Party(s)

MENON AND PAI

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.120/13

JUDGMENT DATED:28/03/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.76/10 on the file of CDRF, Kannur, order dated : 30.11.2012)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS   : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,

          Post S.P. Coil,

          Chenkalpet,

          Tamil Nadu – 603204

 

          (By Adv: Sri. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

 

                                                                   Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Abdul Rasheed. P.P.K.

          S/o. Kunjimuhammed,

          P.P.K. House,

          Munderi.P.O.,

          Kannur Dist.

 

2. PVS Automotive Co. Ltd.,

          Thazhe Chovva Branch,

          P.O. Chovva, Kannur.

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          2^nd opposite party in CC No.76/10 in the CDRF, Kannur is the appellant.  The 1^st respondent /complainant purchased  a Ford Ikon blair car manufactured by the appellant through the 1^st opposite party on 8/3/2008 for Rs.4,83,000/-.  It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party provided 2 years warranty for the vehicle and the complainant obtained extended warranty by paying Rs.9,040/-.  But within six months from the date of purchase unusual sound was heard from the back side of the engine of the car.  The service centre of the opposite parties repaired the vehicle free of cost.  But after a lapse of 2 months the same complaint appeared again.  The steering became defective.  Repeated repairs to the vehicle did not yield the desired result.  Hence the complainant wanted replacement of the car or in the alternative refund of the price of the vehicle. 

          2.      The opposite parties filed separate version before the consumer forum.  The 1^st opposite party denied the allegation that the vehicle emitted bang sound.   When the vehicle crossed mileage of 5667 kilo metres minor complaints were reported.  When the odometer recorded 9827 kilo metres, the complainant reported noise from the belt.  That was when rat gnawed the belt.  That defect was also rectified.   Every complaint to the vehicle reported to the opposite parties was rectified.  The complainant is making complaint of abnormal sound without any basis.  He decided to buy another costly luxurious vehicle and hence the stories were invented, with a view to get refund of price of the vehicle. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. 

          3.      The 2^nd opposite party contended that when noise was reported from the belt PCV hose was replaced to resolve the problem which was purely external.  On 25/7/2009 when misfiring of the engine was reported igniting coil was replaced under warranty though the component failure was attributed to poor quality of fuel and extreme usage.  On 27/8/2009 when vehicle ran 39275km abnormal sound from engine was reported and throttle body was replaced and the problem was resolved.  That problem might occur due to poor quality of fuel and wrong usage.   The part was replaced under warranty as a special gesture of goodwill.  There is no manufacturing defective that hampered the performance for the vehicle.  The vehicle was used extensively under extreme conditions.  Hence the complaint is devoid of merit.  Had the vehicle had any inherent manufacturing defect, it could not have been used extensively.

          4.      Before the consumer forum complainant and one witness were examined as PWs1 and 2.  Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The report of the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.  One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party.  Exts. B1 to B9 were marked on their side.  The consumer forum finding that the power break system and suspension unit of the vehicle were defective, directed the opposite party to replace those components and cure the defect of oil leakage.  The manufacturer of the vehicle is challenging the order of the consumer forum.

          5.      The allegation in the complaint is that the vehicle purchased by the complainant on 8.3.2008 became defective within 6 months. The said allegation is not accepted by the opposite parties as such but it is not denied that the vehicle was brought for repairs to the authorised workshop several times.  The contention raised is that the defects noticed were due to poor quality of fuel used and excessive use of the vehicle under extreme conditions.  To decide the question whether the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect or the defect appeared due to the poor quality of fuel and excessive usage, the independent evidence available is Ext. C1 report of the commissioner who is examined as PW2.  It appears from his evidence that the commissioner drove the vehicle for a distance of about 8 kilo metres to ascertain the defects.  He noticed that the power steering of the vehicle was defective.  The self return of the power steering was not functioning effectively.  At times unnatural sound was heard from the suspension system.  At the time of his inspection the odometer of the vehicle showed reading of 41000 kilo metres.  At the same time the commissioner did not find manufacturing defect in any of the main components   But at the same time he has reported that the defects noticed  are such that are not likely to appear when the vehicle covered the distance noted by him.  It was accepting the commissioners report that the consumer forum ordered replacement of the defective parts and issued direction to make the vehicle road worthy.  On the evidence available the conclusions of the consumer forum cannot be assailed.  Hence we find no merit in the appeal. 

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs. 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.120/13

JUDGMENT DATED:28/03/2016

 

 

 

 

nb