By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows:-
Complainant is a business man having interior designing company and construction company at Kondotty. He purchased a Mahindra SUV 300 Motor Car bearing Registration No.KL-10-BE-0440 and Engine No. NMLZA86799 and chassis No. MAINM2NM1L2A51447 from opposite party No.1 which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. First opposite party is the authorised dealer of second opposite party.
2. The opposite parties have been advertising the above car to be suitable for long journeys and they assured maximum comfort while driving. The vehicle was included in the sports utility vehicle by the second opposite party. First opposite party assured to complainant that since the business of complainant is scattered throughout Malabar region, extensive travel requirement of the complainant will be met by the vehicle. Believing the words of opposite party, complainant purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 10,17,000/-. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs . 8,89,994/- was availed as loan from Axis Bank @ 9.61% interest. Now complainant is paying Rs. 14,596/- towards EMI.
3. On the first journey itself the brand new vehicle began to produce an unusual noise from brake liners and started to behave abnormally when brakes are applied. Complainant immediately contacted the Executive of first opposite party and he convinced the complainant that it is a usual anomaly seen in the fresh vehicle which will disappear after maiden service. Moreover the first opposite party made the complainant believe that returning back for repair on the first drive itself is a bad omen and complainant continue to use the vehicle with utmost care and caution not to meet an accident.
4. On 20/02/2020 complainant submitted the vehicle for service at the first opposite party service centre and they returned the vehicle on the same day itself to complainant. Moreover first opposite party assured to the complainant that all problems regarding brake and noise are fixed, the vehicle is thoroughly serviced and the vehicle is fit for the road. But complainant realised that all problems previously existed with the vehicle surfaced again in a regress manner within a few kilometres of driving. On 07/03/2020 complainant again submitted the vehicle at first opposite party service centre and directed them to rectify the defects. First opposite party returned the vehicle on the same day stating that ‘’defects are cured’’, but vehicle remained defective.
5. On 11/06/2020 after covering 3861 kilometres vehicle having loud noise, brake liner, abnormal ‘’tek, tek’’ sound from left hand side of the vehicle while running and while applying brake. In addition to this problem the left hand side seat started to produce noise and vibration and felt loosely connected. Again the vehicle serviced and returned to complainant on 12/06/2020. On 16/06/2020 complainant submitted the vehicle for service on 4th time in the 5th month for curing the defects, opposite party No.1 returned the vehicle without resolving the problems of the vehicle. Moreover opposite party No.1 refused to record this service anywhere in the records especially in the job card.
6. On 17/07/2020 he again submitted the vehicle for service for same defects and vehicle was returned on the same day stating all problems solved. First opposite party assured that a thorough check-up will be conducted on 10,000 kilometre service. By believing the words of first opposite party, complainant taken back the vehicle on the same day. First opposite party failed to invoke ‘’shield warranty scheme’’ provided by second opposite party to replace the necessary parts. On 11/11/2020 complainant produce the vehicle for the above mentioned service , but opposite party No1 was returned vehicle on the same day saying that vehicle is in fit condition. Believing the words of opposite party No.1, the newly married complainant went on a honeymoon trip with his wife to Munnar on 30/11/2020, but the vehicle broke down in the middle of the road at high range. Both opposite parties failed to provide road side assistance offered by them at the time of purchase of the vehicle. With the help of the Manager of the hotel, complainant kept the car in the premises of the hotel and taken a taxi car for rent for travel in to Munnar. The vehicle took 17.30 hours to travel back from Munnar and complainant submitted the vehicle for service. The vehicle was having sudden brake down while running abnormal noise and vibration from engine, OBD Lamp blowing, gear box was tight while shifting, Bluetooth was not working , abnormal noise from acceleration pedal etc. Complainant explained all the problems to opposite party No.1 and given the vehicle on 02/12/2020 to opposite party for repair and after 30 days they returned back the vehicle to complainant on 01/01/2021. None of the problem was solved and complainant was again entrusted the vehicle on 08/01/2020 to opposite party No.1 and they returned the vehicle on 09/02/2021 after 32 days.
7. Within a period of one year the above vehicle was entrusted for service nearly 9 times and almost 70 days the vehicle was kept in the custody of opposite party No1 for repair and nearly Rs, 5,000/- was paid by complainant as service charge. Travelling expense to and fro the service centre and taking leave from the business also cost a huge amount. Insult and humiliation also suffered by complainant . The first opposite party directed to replace the tyres of the vehicle for curing the complaints and complainant once changed the tyre. On 24/03/2021 complainant again visited first opposite party's service centre and handed over the vehicle for service and they took one month to repair the vehicle.
8. Complainant again stated that the vehicle has ‘’Shield extended warranty ‘’, hence both opposite parties have the duty to rectify all the problems of the vehicle by replacing the necessary parts at free of cost. Complainant completed 10 services for the vehicle , but after every service a new problem will arise. Moreover during the entire time the complainant escaped from several accidents only because he was taking extra care and caution. Complainant’s friends and family started to humiliate him on account of his choice of vehicle. Moreover a newly wedded husband had to borrow another vehicles from his friends for the couples travels.
9. Complainant had sent several emails to opposite parties and he personally visited opposite party No.1 on several occasions, but they were not properly responded. Due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties, complainant was not in a position to attend his work sites all over Malabar region. Complainant believes that both opposite parties have cheated and dishonestly inducing the complainant to purchase a defective vehicle. The violation of promise by its dealer to its customer after receiving full consideration also amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
10. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs. 10,17,000/-, the cost of the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle with a fresh one, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
11. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they did not turn up. Opposite party No.1 filed vakkalath but no version and affidavit filed. Hence opposite parties set exparte.
12. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the copy of registration certificate dated 4/3/2020, Ext.A2 is the copy of insurance certificate dated 4/02/2020, Ext.A3 is the true copy of online tax receipt dated 05/02/2020 , Ext.A4 is the true copy of tax invoice dated 04/02/2020. Ext.A5 is the true copy of receipts sales voucher dated 06/02/2020. Ext. A6 is the true copy of receipts sales voucher dated 06/02/2020. Ext. A7 is the true copy of receipts sales voucher dated 28/01/2020 .
13. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Complainant produced seven documents which are very supportive to prove that he had purchased a vehicle worth Rs. 9,22,222/- from first opposite party which is manufactured by second opposite party. The RC and Motor vehicle tax receipt from 04/02/2020 to 31/12/34 shows that the vehicle is in the name of complainant and he had paid the tax of the vehicle. Ext. A5, A6 and A7 are the receipts sales voucher shows that complainant paid Rs 10,000/-, Rs. 5,297/- and Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party No.1. But there is no documents to prove that the allegation raised by complainant are true. Moreover there is no expert opinion regarding the present condition of the vehicle and past condition of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle had defects from the beginning. Moreover there is no lawyer notice or a notice sent by complainant to opposite parties to inform that the vehicle manufactured and sold by opposite parties are defective. There is no document to show that the vehicle had “shield extended warranty”. Complainant failed to produce the proof regarding the advertisement he had seen and documents regarding the assurance given by opposite parties to him before the Commission. Moreover complainant stated that first opposite party refused to record the service on 16/06/2020 anywhere in the record especially in job card. But he failed to submit the earlier service records before the Commission and also the job card which did not mention the service details before the Commission. Complainant stated in the complaint and affidavit that he had sent several emails to opposite parties , but they were not responded satisfactorily and not redress his grievance. But he did not provide the copy of email communications before the Commission. So the Commission is not convinced about the defect of the vehicle because complainant did not produce relevant documents before the commission. Complainant failed to prove his contentions regarding the defect of the vehicle from the beginning. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 27st day of July, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A7
Ext.A1 : True copy of registration certificate dated 04/03/2020.
Ext.A2 : True copy of insurance certificate dated 04/02/2020.
Ext.A3 : True copy of online tax receipt dated 05/02/2020.
Ext.A4 : True copy of tax invoice dated 04/02/2020.
Ext.A5 :True copy of receipts sales voucher dated 06/02/2020.
Ext. A6 : True copy of receipts sales voucher dated 06/02/2020.
Ext. A7 : True copy of receipts sales voucher dated 28/01/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
