IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 12.11.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.295/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sunny Varghese 1. Ashok Layland Ltd.
Kattungal House Third Floor, Block – 1
Mararikkulam P.O. Temple Steps No. 184-197
Alappuzha Anna Salai Little Mount
(By Adv. K.N. Azhakesan) Chennai – 600 015
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
2. EVM Light Commercial Motors
Authorized Dealers of Ashok
Leyland Light Vehicles, NH 47
Alummoodu Junction
Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram
3. EVM Light Commercial Motors
Branch Office of Authorized Dealer
Old Madhavan Inc, Kalavoor
Alappuzha
(By Adv. Ajith. S. Nair – for opposite parties 2 and 3)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant purchased a vehicle from the third opposite party on 9.11.2012. It was manufactured by the first opposite party and second opposite party is the dealer. Ever since, the date of purchase the vehicle having mechanical defects of one kind or other. The vehicle developed steering vibration, wheels joint were also replaced by the third opposite party. When the vehicle was on road it shows oil leakage. As per the direction of the third opposite party he entrusted the vehicle on 31.10.2014 to the work shop of third opposite party. The non availability of the spare parts at retail outlets created difficult to the complainant and it is a gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant is eking his lively hood from his vehicle and he is suffering financial, physical and mental agony due to the vehicle from the date of purchase. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose. The allegation that spare parts are available only through their workshop is baseless. The allegation that steering vibration was shown immediately after the purchase was baseless. The vehicle was not maintained according to the recommendations made by the opposite parties. The opposite party is not duty bound to private service to the customers between the complainant and opposite parties, since there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to get a new vehicle as claimed in the complaint.
3. The version of the second and third opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant is not intimated any defects during the warranty period and during the free services. The vehicles are provided with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase or running of 50000 kms. whichever is earlier. On a perusal of the vehicle history available with this opposite party, it is found that the vehicle has done more than 80000 kms. and the same is not properly maintained as per the stipulations provided by the manufacturer. The allegations with respect to the availability of spare parts are not correct and the same is denied. It is submitted that the spare parts as alleged. The alleged defects in the vehicle may be occurred due to improper maintenance. The details of the defects and the date of repairs are not stated and such this opposite party is not in a position to make any comments on the allegations. It is true that there was oil leakage and the same was occurred due to wear and tear and improper maintenance. The complaint was properly attended to and the vehicle was repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant. There is no inordinate delay in the repair works. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the adequate service is provided to the customers. There is no improper or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The document produced from the side of the opposite parties marked as Ext.B1.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
1) Whether the complainant is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that on 9.11.2012 the complainant had purchased the vehicle having description Dost LE BS III from the third opposite party which is the branch of the second opposite party dealer and is manufactured by the first opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle has one year warranty or run of 50000 kms., whichever is earlier. One of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer since vehicle in dispute is purchased to use it as a commercial vehicle. According to the complainant, he himself is driving the vehicle and is seeking of his livelihood from the said vehicle. Opposite party has not produced any evidence in order to controvert the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint is found maintainable.
7. Points 2 &3 :- According to the complainant from the date of purchase, the vehicle has having mechanical defects of one kind or another. The vehicle shows steering vibration and the ball joint of wheel was replaced by third opposite party and the complainant paid Rs.4,800/-. Exts.A1 to A4 are the receipt issued by the third opposite party and it show that complainant had taken the vehicle to the authorized workshop for repairing the defects of one kind or another. The contention of the opposite party is that the vehicle was overloaded and fault arrived due to improper handling by the complainant. While cross examining the complainant he admitted that the vehicle used to be loaded with consignments weighing 1600 kg. He also stated that the permitted limit was only 1250 kg. and used to transport consignments to High range area had leakage and had done the service only after the vehicle had run more than 12129 kms. instead of 10000 kms. Hence it is evidenced from the deposition of the complainant that the vehicle was overloaded and he had violated the conditions of warranty. According to the complainant, the vehicle has steering complaint and oil leakage during warranty period. But there is no documents produced by the complainant to prove that the said complaints were still existing even after the service done by the opposite party. According to the opposite party the vehicle had run more than 100000 kms. and no such leakages or steering complaints had even occurred again. It is pertinent to notice that complainant has not produced any independent technical expert report in order to prove that the vehicle has manufacturing defect. As per the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2009 CPJ page 229 the allegation of manufacturing defect cannot be decided in the absence of expert opinion in the form of evidence.
8. From evidence on record it is clear that the vehicle was taken for oil change after running more than requisite km. and for steering vibration and those defects already been repaired by the third opposite party. Apart from that it is also evidenced from the admissions of the first opposite party in the version that the complainant had taken the vehicle for bole joint failure and break complaint during the warranty period. Hence the complainant failed to prove the allegations of manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complaint during the warranty period duly attended by the opposite parties and in this circumstances this Forum finds no defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sunny Varghese (Witness)
Ext.A1 to A4 - Receipts (4 Nos.)
Ext.A5 series - Copy of the job card invoice (5 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Dealer Sales Service Agreement
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
