Kerala

Idukki

CC/106/2016

Arun Ashokan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Daiwik Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Vikraman Nair

30 May 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23.3.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.106/2016

Between

Complainant : Arun Ashokan, S/o. Ashsokan,

Block No.87, Kallar P.O.,

Mundiyeruma, Pampadumpara,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Vikraman Nair N.G.)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Daiwik Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Jane & Jane's arcade,

Cheppally Junction,

Sakthikulangara,

Kollam – 691 581.

2. Daiwik Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Kattappana.

3. International Cars & Motors Ltd.,

Admin Office, Village Chak Gujran,

Piplawalan P.O., Jalandhar Road,

Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146 001.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant had purchased an ICML Extreme DI, diesel motor car from 1^st opposite party, on 9.5.2014 through 2^nd opposite party, the branch office of 1^st opposite party, at Kattappana. At the time of purchase, the 2^nd opposite party assured that the after sale service of the vehicle shall be available at 2^nd opposite party. The complainant purchased the vehicle to ply it as a taxi for earning his livelihood.

 

In the very first journey in the vehicle from the showroom to Kattappana, the reverse gear, break light reverse light, inner light and the central locking

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

system were not worked. The complainant informed the matter to 2^nd opposite party and registered the defects. At that time, the manager of 2^nd opposite party told that it will be all right after the first service. In the first service, the 2^nd opposite party replaced the breaklight, switch and they realised its price from the complainant. But still the reverse light is not working. The 2^nd opposite party informed that the gear box is to be dismantled. The 2^nd opposite party has not provided the remote key of central lock.

 

The complainant further stated that within two months of the purchase of the vehicle, the 2^nd opposite party showroom was shut down and on contacting with 1^st opposite party, they directed the complainant to approach their service centre at Ettumanoor, for the future services of the vehicle. But on enquiry, complainant come to know that, except 1^st opposite party, all other service centres of 3^rd opposite party were closed, which is not an easily accessible place to the complainant.

 

The complainant further stated that, when the vehicle runs 20-30 km, its 1^st gear will not work and excess sound is coming out when moving its 2^nd gear. Also getting very low mileage. During cold season, bubbles formed in fibre parts of the vehicle colour is fading and body is deteriorating. All these defects shows the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. Complainant further averred that, the battery of the vehicle was dead in its 8^th month of purchase. The battery is having 2 years warranty and when the complainant informed this to 1^st opposite party, they informed him that it will take 15 days to repair and it has to be brought to the Kottarakkara showroom, it is practically impossible to the complainant. Due to the non-availability of the spare parts of the vehicle, the complainant is suffering a lot to cure the defects of the vehicle. The complainant is forced to approach the private service point to service his vehicle, since no authorised service centre of the 3^rd opposite party is not available within their reach.

 

The complainant further stated that the above facts clearly shows that, the vehicle discussed above is having serious manufacturing defect and opposite parties are failed to provide proper after sale service. This act of the opposite parties are sheer deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Against this act of the opposite parties, the complainant filed this petition for getting relief such as to direct the opposite party to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or to repay Rs.12 lakhs as the price of the vehicle along with interest. Further direct the opposite party to pay cost and compensation. Direct the opposite parties to provide proper service on time and to extend warranty for further period of 2 years. (cont.....3)

- 3 -

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and 3^rd opposite party filed detailed reply version contending that this opposite party appoints and deals with its dealers on principal to principal basis and never deals with any customer directly. The service is provided by the authorised service centres. This opposite party is unaware of any financial facility availed by the complainant. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and hence complaint is legally not maintainable before the Forum. Opposite party further contended that after proper testing and quality checks the vehicle are sent to dealers for sale. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle having fully satisfying himself, hence the story put up in this case is false and concocted. No complaint was ever made to 3^rd opposite party, neither any defect was brought to the knowledge of this opposite party. There is no defect in the vehicle, the complaint has been filed just to harass the opposite party having failed to pay the loan instalments. Opposite party further contended that the complainant has not followed the service schedule and has got the service done from the outside agency as per his own admission. Hence as per the warranty policy, the warranty became void. It is totally wrong, the spare parts are not available in the market as alleged.

Opposite party further contended that there is no manufacturing defect and therefore there is no question of replace the vehicle as claimed by the complainant. The complaint is devoid of any merits and it is to be dismissed.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 and C1 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC Book. Ext.P2 is the copy of sale certificate dated 9.5.2014. Ext.P3 is the copy of retail invoice. Ext.P4 is the copy of permit. Ext.P5 is the copy of 1^st free service coupon. Ext.P6 is the brochure.

 

On the application of the complainant, Forum appointed one C.S. David, Rtd. Joint RTO, as expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle and file a report. The report is marked as Ext.C1 and the expert commissioner was examined as PW2.

 

From the opposite side, Manager of 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.R1 to R8 marked. Ext.R1 is the list of service centres. Ext.R2 to R6 are the copies of agreement between the 3^rd opposite party and their service agents. Ext.R7 is the authorisation letter. Ext.R8 is the copy of vehicle sale list. In this case, complainant filed a petition to adopt the cross examination of DW1 in CC No.183/2015 and consider it in this matter also.

(cont.....4)

- 4 -

Heard both sides.

 

The points that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for both sides and had gone through the exhibits carefully. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a new vehicle from 2^nd opposite party, sub-agent of 1^st opposite party, manufactured by 3^rd opposite party by paying more than Rs.10 lakhs. From the beginning days of its purchase, the vehicle showed complaints in reverse gear, break light, reverse light, inner light and central lock system. As per the version of the complainant, the defect happened on the date of purchase of the vehicle and on the way from the 2^nd opposite party showroom to his house. This complaints registered in 2^nd opposite party show room immediately. Some of the defects are rectified in its first service with 2^nd opposite party. But the defect in reverse light is remaining and the 2^nd opposite party informed, it will be occurred by dismantling the gear box. Also, the complainant stated that remote key of the central lock system was not provided by the opposite party.

 

On going through the proof affidavit and the deposition of PW1, it is seen that the allegation of the closing of authorised service points are not challenged by the 3^rd opposite party. It is also noted that for substantiating the defects of the vehicle, the complainant obtained an expert opinion and the expert report is marked as Ext.C1 and expert commissioner was examined as PW2. On going through Ext.C1, commission report, it is seen that the commissioner inspected the vehicle in question, bearing Reg. No.KL-69-3119 and found that,

(1) Putting the 1^st gear position is very difficult in idling and at an emergency in uphill and there is excess noise in 2^nd gear running. (2) Wrong wheel alignment and fault in suspension system will cause uneven worn-off tyre.

(3) It is very difficult to get reverse gear position in idling, and it is very noisy.

(4) Bubbles found in paint work at fiber parts of the body.

(5) Tail lights not working.

(6) Body foundation left side middle is broken.

 

After noticing the above said defects, the expert commissioner pointed out that, 'from the above it is clear that the gear box of the vehicle is found faulty, front suspension system needs repair break system needs repairs, fibre parts of the body need replacement and body foundation is to be repaired. The expert commissioner being a Rtd. Joint RTO, specifically advised the complainant, 'not

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

to drive the vehicle in public place for more than 15 km/hour without rectifying the above mentioned defects. On going through the expert report, we can see that, the defects noted by him in the vehicle is serious defects and it can be rectified in an authorised service centre of 3^rd opposite party. But unfortunately, almost all the service centres of 3^rd opposite party are closed one by one and no evidence is produced by the 3^rd opposite party, these service centres as per Ext.R1 to R6 are functioning smoothly. As a authorised service agent, 1^st opposite party is also failed to adduce any evidence to convince the Forum that at least they are functioning still. 1^st opposite party has not filed reply version also. It is seen that, as per the contention in this complaint, 2^nd opposite party already stopped functioning. Under this circumstances, being a taxi driver, the complainant is using this vehicle for his livelihood, he forced to approach the local workshops to cure the defect of the vehicle, since he invested a huge amount by way of vehicle loan. Only due to the irresponsible and reckless attitude of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant forced to approach the other service centres. Providing after sale service and distributing the spare parts of the vehicle is a prime responsibility of the manufacturer of a vehicle. Eventhough the 3^rd opposite party produced the list of their service centres and the copy of agreement with some service centres, no specific evidence is produced by them before the Forum that the service centres which is stated in Exts.R1 to R6 are functioning. 3^rd opposite party is having ample opportunity to produce any one of service agents as a witness before the Forum to strengthen their documents. Except the deposition of DW1, one Manager of 3^rd opposite party, no evidence is produced by the opposite party before the Forum.

 

At this juncture, the Forum is of considered view that, the service centres of the opposite party has closed due to the non-availability of spare parts or some other reasons which the 3^rd opposite party is directly responsible.

 

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, Forum found that, the act of the opposite party, in non-providing proper after sale service to the vehicle in question, which is admittedly manufactured by them is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complaint deserves compensation for that.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. 3^rd opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the vehicle which is stated in Ext.C1 commission report to the satisfaction of the complainant, or else, 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs as the value of the vehicle and Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for the mental and financial sufferings caused to the complainant by purchasing the vehicle.

(cont.....6)

- 6 -

 

3^rd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation cost. The above said order shall comply within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount stated above except the cost, shall bear 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont.....7)

- 7 -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Arun Asokan.

PW2 - C.S. David.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - C. Chandrasekharan.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of RC Book.

Ext.P2 - copy of sale certificate dated 9.5.2014.

Ext.P3 - copy of retail invoice.

Ext.P4 - copy of permit.

Ext.P5 - copy of 1^st free service coupon.

Ext.P6 - brochure.

Ext.C1 - Commission report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - list of service centres.

Ext.R2 to R6 - copies of agreement between the 3^rd opposite party

and their service agents.

Ext.R7 - authorisation letter.

Ext.R8 - copy of vehicle sale list.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT