D.o.F:28/X/06<br /> D.o.O:23/X/o8<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.126/06 <br /> Dated this, the 23rd day of October 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. M.Babu, S/o Aithappa,<br /> Kolaviadka House,<br /> Nekraje, Perdala Po,kasaragod.<br /> 2. Mrs.Sukanya, W/o Janardhanan, : Complainants<br /> Murugan Nilaya,Chattankuzhi,<br /> Vidyanagar,kasaragod.<br /> 3 Padmanabha,S/o late Kote poojari,<br /> Cherugoli House,,Po.Mangalpady,<br /> Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Eicher Motors Ltd,<br /> 101,Industrial Area No.1,<br /> Pithampur 454775,Dhar Dt.(M.P.)<br /> 2. Eicher Automotive Marketing Pvt.Ltd, : Opposite parties<br /> Calicut.678021<br /> <br /> 3. Panduranga ,Proprietor,<br /> Eicher Engineering Works & Service Centre,<br /> Madhur Road, Uliyathadka,kasaragod.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainants M.Babu, Sukanya and Padmanabha is that they are all purchased the stage carriages from 2nd opposite party which are manufactured by !st opposite party. At the time of purchase opposite parties No.1&2 assured warranty of engine and gear box for 3 years and one year for other parts and also assured that such service will be provided free of charge under mobile workshop. Contrary to this assurance no mobile workshop service provided at Kasaragod. As a result the Ist complainant has to take his vehicle to the service center at Kannur for proper service since he has not satisfied with the service provided at Kasaragod. The Ist complainant thereby suffered loss in revenue. The complainant Nos.2&3 eventhough not satisfied with the service of the opposite party No.3, considering the expenses if taken to service center at Kannur did not take the Bus to there. All the complainants found difficulties in getting the genuine spare parts of Eicher vehicle at Kasaragod whenever the vehicle subjected to repair. Quite dissatisfied with the after sales services this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties entered appearance in response to the notices, filed their versions. According to opposite party No.1, Eicher Motors the manufacturer of the vehicle, complaint is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties and a joint complaint by three complainants are not legal or proper. Eicher Motors had taken all necessary steps to ensure availability of genuine spare parts of Eicher vehicle though automobile dealers of Kasaragod district and opposite party has also set up a full fledged service station at Kanhangad. Hence Eicher motors is not a necessary party to the complaint and the complaint against them is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Second opposite party Eicher Automotive Marketing Pvt.Ltd has also filed the version reiterating the contentions of the Ist opposite party. But with respect to the service offered, according to 2nd opposite party they have not represented that service will be provided free of charge under mobile workshop. No such assurance was given by 2nd opposite party. But in order to render immediate attention they appointed a satellite service out let at Kasaragod and also made available trained private mechanic exclusively to buses plying in and around Kasaragod which was done by their own will and spare parts were also available in plenty. Hence the allegation that the service provided were not satisfactory is totally unjustified. Moreover, they set up a direct service station at Kanhangad. As an authorized dealer of the company, the 2nd opposite party has always behaved responsibly and provided proper services as required by the customers. The prayer made by the complainants are devoid of merit and the claims are too tall to be considered by the Forum. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> 4. According to 3rd opposite party his service center is intended for minor and almost recurring complaint of vehicle. He does not undertake major repairs, but only those minor works entrusted through the 1&2nd opposite parties. The works entrusted to him were done satisfactorily. He is not supplying all the spare parts of vehicles, but being supplied on demand by the Ist& 2nd opposite parties. There are no separate spare parts shop of the Eicher company at Kasaragod. The opposite parties No.1&2 have not stationed their own mechanic at his service center. The 3rd opposite party is getting his labour charges when a work is entrusted to him. Hence OP.No.3 has no liability and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 5. All the three complainants filed separate affidavits in lieu of chief examination. The counsel for opposite parties cross-examined the complainant No.1. Exts.A1 to A10 are marked on the side of the complainants. For opposite party No.1 one Manoj M.K. Jr. Manager, M/s Eicher motors, cochin has filed affidavit reiterating what is stated in the version of Opposite party No.1. OP.No.3 Panduranga, Proprietor of Eicher Engineering Works and Service Center filed affidavit repeating what is contained in his version.<br /> <br /> 6. According to opposite parties No.1&2 a joint complaint by three complainants is not maintainable. This contention is not acceptable in view of Sec.2(1)(b)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act. As per this section complainant means one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. So as per this section all the complainants can jointly file a complaint those who having same interest. The next contention of opposite parties No.1&2 that the purchase of vehicles are for commercial purpose. But in cross examination complainant No.1 testified that he is a driver by profession and the income derived by running the bus is the only source of his livelihood which are under self employment. According to complainant Nos 2&3, the income derived by running the bus is the only source of livelihood which are under self employment . Hence the contentions that the vehicles are purchased for commercial purpose is also not sustainable. Another contention the counsel for opposite parties 1&2 raised was that there is no territorial jurisdiction for the Forum. This contention is also not sustainable in view of the fact that third opposite party carries on his business within the territorial limits of this Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. The prime grievance of all the complainants are that there is lack of post sales service for the vehicles as against the promises and assurance rendered by opposite party No.2. According to complainants, they purchased the Eicher vehicles lured with the offer of Opposite parties 1&2 that they will be provide post sales services free of charge under mobile workshop but such a facility is not provided. The satellite service out let arranged by 1&2nd opposite parties are only for name sake and it did not cater their needs. But according to Opposite parties 1&2 they had taken all necessary steps to supply genuine spare parts of Eicher vehicles to the automobile dealer of Kasaragod District and that they had also set up a full fledged service station at Kanhangad. According to 2nd opposite party, they established a satellite service outlet at Kasaragod and made available trained private mechanic at Kasaragod to undertake all repairs. But first complainant did not take advantage of the sso available and take his vehicle for repair to the service center situated at Kannur.<br /> <br /> 8. The satellite service outlet engaged by opposite parties No.1&2 is 3rd opposite party. As against the version of 1st &2nd opposite parties, it is the case of OP.NO.3 that he was appointed by OP.NO.2 to carry out minor and almost recurring complaints of vehicles and he did not undertake major repairs. He is not supplying all the spare parts of the vehicles but being supplied on demand by the 1st &2nd opposite parties. There are no separate spare parts shop of the Eicher company at Kasaragod. The first and 2nd opposite party have not stationed their own mechanic at his service center .<br /> <br /> 9. From the above version of opposite party No.3 it is clear that the post sales services rendered by opposite parties 1&2 are virtually for name sake. No consumer will opt to purchase vehicles especially stage carriages if it is found that there is no effective post sales services and the availability of spare parts and it is a common practice among the traders/dealers to assure and offer attractive promises as part of their sales promotion and later on withdraw their offers once the consumer is in trapped their web. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of complainants that opposite parties No.1&2 assured that they will provide free after sales services through a mobile workshop at Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> 10. The act of opposite parties 1&2 amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence they are liable to compensate complainants. In one of the reliefs the complainants prays for a direction to set up a service station of the opposite parties at Kasaragod. But we think it is not necessary in view of the fact that opposite parties set up a full fledged service center at Kanhangad.<br /> <br /> Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each to the complainants No. 1 to 3 for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by them. Opposite parties No.1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- each to the complainant Nos.1 to 3 towards the cost of this proceedings. OP.NO.3 is exonerated from the liabilities. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts:<br /> A1-26/9/06-Lawyer notice<br /> A2-postal acknowledgment<br /> A3-Operators manual<br /> A4toA8 series- cash bills<br /> A9&A10- Copy of Driving licenses of Complainant Nos.1&3<br /> PW1-M.Babu-complainant.No.1.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> eva/<br /> <br />