Karnataka

Kolar

CC/13/2017

Subramani.B.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Advaith Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25/01/2017

Date of Order: 14/08/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 13 OF 2017

Sri. Subramani.B.M,

S/o. Muniveerappa,

Belamaranahally Village & Post,

Kolar Taluk,

Now Residing at:

Beside Central Jail, Kote,

Kolar.                                                    ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

Advaith Motors (P) Ltd.,

Kolar By-pass,

Near Basavanatha Village,

Kolar.

 

(Rep. by Sri.K.P. Ramesh, Advocate)                     …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant in-person has filed this complaint seeking directions against the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,600/- towards cost of the battery, Rs.500/- towards repair charges along with interest, to pay defaulted 03 months EMIs along with interest, Rs.20,000/- towards financial loss and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant submitted that, on 06.01.2016 complainant purchased “Xcent CRDi S BSIV Sleek Silver” Light motor Car from the OP by making payment of Rs.6,44,586/-.  In respect of the said purchase the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.5,15,000/- from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and an Hypothecation Agreement was also been executed between the financer and borrower.  The complainant further submitted that, the above said car was purchased for the purpose of running a Taxi for his livelihood.  But the above car was started giving problem from November-2016.  Hence complainant approached the OP.  The OP informed the complainant above the battery problem and it has to be replaced.  The complainant further submitted that, the OP service persons advised the complainant to pay the charge of the battery.  The complainant has requred the servcie persons to replace the same with free of cost as the same is under warrantee period.  But the OP had not complied.  Hence complainant purchased a new battery at his own cost by making payment of Rs.5,600/- and got it repaired.  The complainant further submitted that, due to the above act of the OP he has put to financial loss and hence complainant has filed this complaint seeking above set-out reliefs.

 

(b)    The complainant has submitted following copies of the documents:-

(i) Customer Statement of Account Report-4029697

(ii) Form No.42 Permit in respect of a Contract Carriage

(iii) Invoice No.195, dated: 25.11.2016 issued by M/s. R.K. Auto Electricals, Kolar.

(iv) Invoice bearing No.H201500120, dated: 06.01.2016

(v) Debit Note and Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass

(vi) Certificate of Registration bearing vehicle No.KA07A6114

(vii) Driving License of the complainant

(viii) Warranty Booklet pertaining to SF Sonic

 

03.   In response to the notice the learned counsel for the OP appeared and filed its version by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    The OP submitted that, OP is not responsible and liable for the manufacturing defects of the spare parts like batteries, audio-visual systems, etc.  As stipulated under the warranty clause the manufacturers are only responsible and liable for such defects and the OP shall facilitate the same if the same is covered under the warranty.  OP further submitted that, immediately after receipt of the information from the complainant the matter was taken with Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore, by lodging a warranty claim and the Exide Industries had informed the OP that, “Battery is out of warranty as the vehicle has already covered the requisite mileage for which the battery was covered”.  The Exide industries further confirmed that, the maximum mileage covered under the warranty for the battery of the complainant is 25000 kms, whereas the vehicle has already run for a mileage of 55,000 kms and therefore the claim of the complainant was rejected.  The copy of the letter received from the Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore, is herewith produced and marked as Document No.8.  The OP further submitted that, the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 05.01.2016.  After discussion and finalization of the rate and demo driver etc., complainant booked the vehicle at cost of Rs.6,44,586/- excluding the cost of the spare parts and other incidental charges.  The OP further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions at the time of delivery of the vehicle on 06.01.2016 supplied a service manual and other guidelines to be followed by the complainant for free service, paid service, etc.  The complainant was duly accepted the same. 

 

(b)    The OP further submitted that, the complainant could get several services including three free services for the period from 06.01.2016 to 24.11.2016 and he did not report a single complaint about the battery defect and only on 24.11.2016 when he approached the OP for paid service, he reported that, the battery is not functioning and immediately after the said complaint, the OP verified the records and found that, the warranty of the battery was over as on 24.11.2016 and the same was specifically informed to the complainant.  The OP further submitted that, the complainant has not made M/s. Exide Industries as a necessary party to the complaint and therefore the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(c)    Along with the version the OP has produced following copies of the documents:-

(i) Manual Book Page No.2,

(ii) Invoice No. H201500120, dated: 06.01.2016

(iii) Incidental Charges Bill dated: 06.01.2016

(iv) Delivery Receipt and gate pass dated: 06.01.2016

(v) Services carried out on different dates: 27.01.2016 to 10.12.2016

(vi) Battery repair order dated: 18.11.2016

(vii) Battery services invoice dated: 24.11.2016

(viii) Warranty letter given by Exide Battery Industries dated: 30.11.2016.

 

04.   On 04.04.2017 complainant in-person has filed affidavit evidence in support of his claim.  On 24.04.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP has filed affidavit evidence of one Sri. R.Punyamurthy, S/o. Shri Raja, Service Manager.  On 06.06.2017 the learned counsel appearing for the OP has submitted written arguments and on 17.07.2017 we have heard the oral arguments of the complainant.

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

 (C) What order?

 

06.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Negative.

 

 

POINT (C):               As per final order for

the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

07.   On perusing the pleadings along with affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties it is an admitted fact that, on 06.01.2016 complainant has purchased one “Xcent CRDi S BSIV Sleek Silver” Car from OP for Rs.6,44,586/-. 

 

08.   The complainant alleged that, the above said car started giving problem within 11 months from the date of its purchase.  The OP service persons informed the complainant that, battery is dead and it must be replaced.  And also informed that, the battery is not under warranty hence OP service persons advised the complainant to pay the cost of the battery.  The complainant alleged that, the OP had given one year warranty for the above said car and the problem was occurred within 01 years, hence battery is covered under the warranty period.  The learned counsel appearing for the OP submitted that, the OP is not responsible for any manufacturing defect in the battery as per the warranty clause.  And the OP has also produced the copy of the manual book wherein which at page-2 it reads as under:-

“Batteries, Audio Systems, Tyres and Tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by HMIL.”

 

        Hence it is clear that, if any defect found in the battery the manufacturer is responsible and not the OP herein.  Further the OP counsel submitted that, they have already informed about the complaint to the Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore.  And the Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore, had informed the OP that, the battery is out of warranty as it has already covered the requisite mileage.  The Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore, had further confirmed that, the maximum mileage covers under the warranty for the battery is 25,000 Kms.  Where the vehicle of the complainant has already run mileage of 55000 kms and therefore the claim of the complainant is rejected.  In this regard the OP has also produced the Letter dated: 30.11.2016 issued by the Exide Industries Limited, Bangalore.  On perusal of the letter produced by the OP it is clearly mentioned that, the vehicle has already covered requisite mileage for which the maximum mileage is 25,000 kms.  Hence for the above discussion we came to the conclusion that, the battery is out of warranty and the OP is not responsible for any defects found in the battery.    Hence we hold that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly, we answered point (A) & (B) in the Negative.

 

POINT (C):-

09.   In view of the above discussion we proceed to pass following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 14^th DAY OF AUGUST 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT