By  Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar,  Member :

                        The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one  golden colour ABGD  tipper vehicle on 22-2-06, paying Rs.6,82,200/- and another golden brown cabin and chasis  tipper  vehicle on 5-12-06, paying Rs.6,80,000/-, from the third opposite party ,being the dealers of the vehicle at cochin .   At the time of the purchase, the opposite party offered and agreed that there will be a warranty for three years including replacement warranty, for the above said  Eicher Tipper Vehicle. For all such vehicles, the 1^st opposite party, being the manufacturer had assured and advertised three year warranty. After ten months of the purchase of the 1^st vehicle, its rear axle was broken.  Hence, believing in the offer made by the opposite parties, the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party, who refused to replace the spare part, as offered. Ultimately the complainant was constrained to replace the said part from the 4^th opposite party, by making payment.  Again, on 5-05-07, and on 21-05-07 ,  being within the assured warranty period ,the rear axle of the 2^nd vehicle was broken .  In both these cases, since the 4^th opposite party refused free replacement. The complainant had to get the vehicle repaired by the 4^th opposite party on payment. The complainant had thus, to spend a total amount of Rs.6000/- towards repair charges.  Again, on 28-07-07, the rear axle of one of the vehicles was again broken and the complainant was forced to repair the vehicle, by spending Rs.2100/-.  At the time of the purchase of the 2^nd vehicle, the opposite party had assured and advertised that the vehicle had ‘’E2 power and  therefore more quality in Engine, Gearbox, and housing.  By believing in this advertisement, that vehicle was purchased. However, the complainant was constrained to repair the vehicle, at his own cost.  According to the complainant, the action of the opposite party amounts to breach of contract, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice .The complainant, therefore, sent a lawyer notice dated 27-07-07 to the opposite parties.  Against this ,the 3^rd & 4^th  opposite parties jointly issued a reply notice ,containing unsustainable contentions . Hence the complaint filed  to direct the opposite party  to pay Rs.8100/- ,being the amount paid for the repair of the vehicle , in addition to compensation and cost .

                        2.In the versions filed, the opposite parties have raised the contention that the three year warranty offered was only for the engine and the gearbox of the vehicle .This fact was made known to the complainant .It is the automobile industry norm that three years warranty is provided only for engine and gear box, and not for any other parts of the vehicle .This is known to all people, who are directly or indirectly dealing with the automobile industry. Hence ,the averment that 1^st opposite party had assured and advertised three years warranty for the vehicle  is baseless .The warranty policy of the vehicle is explained to all customers and a detailed warranty policy  is handed  over to all customers ,including the complainant .The breakage of the axle was not due to any manufacturing defect ,but due to the overloading of the vehicle  and improper and unscientific driving .Senior mechanics of the opposite party thoroughly inspected the vehicle and found that the complainant has changed the original tyre to unspecified tyre size  ,to suit his  convenience . However this was against the specification laid down by the opposite parties. When this was brought to the notice of the complainant, he replied that the specific tyre is not suitable for overloading .Considering all the above facts, the breakage of the axle cannot be considered to be due to manufacturing defect, but due to the negligent use of the vehicle, for which warranty cannot be claimed. If the complainant has spend any amount for the repair of the vehicle ,it is his duty and obligation to do  so  and the opposite parties are in no way liable  to repay or compensate for the same . Moreover ,the complainant has  more than two vehicles ,which are used for commercial purpose and as such ,the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum .The opposite parties have not done any illegal acts or indulged in any unfair trade practice ,as alleged by the complainant  .Considering all the above ,the complaint be dismissed with cost.

                   3.The points for consideration are that :

1. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so, compensation and costs?

                   4.Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 & RW1, Exhibits P1 to P11 & R1 to R9 marked (R8 & R9 with objection). The complainant, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have filed proof affidavit.

                   5.The complainant is of the argument that at the time of the purchase, the 4^th opposite party had offered three year replacement warranty on both the vehicles. Moreover, the 1^st opposite party, being the manufacturer had   assured and advertised three year warranty. However, when the complainant approached  the 4^th opposite party  when the axle was broken ,  he refused  to  replace  the spare parts ,as assured .  As such, the complainant had to spend Rs.8100/- towards the replacement charge of the axle.   

                   6.According to the opposite party ,the three year warranty was offered  only for  engine and gear box and not for any other part of the vehicle , which is of common knowledge to all people who  are  directly or indirectly  dealing with the automobile industry. The warranty policy is explained to all customers, including the complainant and a detailed warranty policy is handed over to all, at the time of the purchase of the vehicle. The contention that the complainant relied on the advertisement is false.

                   7.The Forum has gone through all aspects of the case, in detail .The Forum is of the view that it is for the complainant to prove his contentions . In this case, the contention of the complainant is that the entire vehicle is covered  by the three year warranty  and hence ,the opposite party is bound to refund the amount spent by  him  for repairing the vehicle .The contention being so, it is for the complainant to produce the document which  proves  the warranty, as claimed by him . It is a fact that every dealer will hand over all the documents, including the warranty card, at the time of the purchase of a vehicle. However, the complainant has not produced this crucial document, which proves the warranty, claimed by him. Since he claims to have seen the advertisement by RW1, he could have at least produced this advertisement. However, he has not done so. The complainant could have at least taken steps to prove his contentions, at least by cross examining the opposite parties. However, the cross examination of the service manager has not served the purpose. As such ,the Forum could see that the complainant has failed to prove his contentions.

                   In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without cost .

                   Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31^st day  of  August      2016.