orde
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 243/2010
Wednesday, the 27th day of July , 2011
Petitioner : Aswin Joseph,
Meleparampil ,
Kurichy P.O
Kottayam
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
NP-54, Development Plot,
Thiru-v-ka Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai
reptd. by its
Area parts and service Manager.
(By Adv. Vimal Revi)
2) The Popular Hyundai
South P.O., Kodimatha,
Kottayam
reptd. by its Customer Relations
Manager.
(By Adv.Royce Chirayil)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
This petition is filed by the petitioner alleging deficiency in service committed by opposite party 2 accepting charges for offered free service of the Hundai
Car. Petitioner is the owner of a Hundai Car. 1st opposite party published in their owners manual that no charges will be taken for the 3 free services accordingly service coupons are issued to the petitioner. Petitioner had entrusted the car manufactured by the first opposite party, to the second opposite party, authorized dealer for the free service. For second assured free service second opposite party had taken a fee of Rs. 1344/- . For the 3rd assured free service second opposite party collected a fee of Rs. 950/. According to the petitioner the collection of this amounts against the representation in the owners manual amounts to deficiency in service. So,
-2-
he prays for a direction to the opposite party to refund amount collected from the petitioner. He claims cost and compensation for the deficiency in service.
First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The aspect of services/repairs of the car is strictly inter-se between petitioner and the second opposite party and the responsibility of the first opposite party is restricted and limited to warranty obligations. The car was delivered to the petitioner in perfect running condition without any technical or mechanical defect. So, first opposite party is not responsible for the present complaint. From the information received from the second opposite party it is known that second opposite party had collected only the prices of consumables like engine oil, gear oil, oil filter etc. which are not included in the list of free services and are shown as on chargeable items. The free services which are offered by the first opposite party include free labour and services which are specifically mentioned in the check list. Further the approval of the petitioner was sought before starting the services of petitioners car. According to the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Free services offered by the manufacturer do not included charges for services that are prescribed at the back side of the free service coupon in the owners manual. It is specifically stated that no charges for labour will be levied from the customer and the customer had to put the signature on the coupon agreeing the said offer. Second opposite party did not realize any amount as labour charges for doing the service. So, second opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the deposition of petitioner as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and proof affidavit and Ext. B1 to B2 series documents on the side of the opposite parties.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party collected money from the petitioner for the services rendered during the free service period. Petitioner produced copy of the 3rd free coupon said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 document it can be seen that there is an endorsement that the services has been carried out with no charge for labour. From Ext. A2 document it can be seen that the charges are collected for the replaced consumable items. In the reverse side of the check list it is specifically stated the services which are rendered at the time of 20,000 K.M free service. In the check list it is specifically enlisted what components are repaired, inspected, adjust and replaced. Petitioner has no case that opposite party received any amount from the petitioner as labour charges for doing the service. Since there is no offer from the part of the manufacturer with regard to the price of the replaced consumable the realization of the value of the same from the consumer will not amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is allowed.
-4-
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of July, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of 3rd free service coupon
Ext. A2: Copy of invoice Dtd: 13..3..2010
Ext. A3: Copy of letter Dtd: 6..9..2010
Ext. A4: Copy of mail Dtd: 7..9..2010
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of second free service coupon
Ext. B2series: Invoice computer print of the second service.
Deposition
PW1: Aswin Joseph.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
r
