Kerala

Idukki

CC/204/2018

Shijo Genardhanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eros Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :26.11.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.204/2018

Between

Complainant : Shijo Janardhanan,

Nadupparambil House,

Vimalagiri P.O.,

Idukki – 685 602.

(By Adv: Jijo Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Eros Automobiles,

Nirmala Building,

Idukki Road, Kattappana.

Near KSRTC Sub Dippot,

Kattappana.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

 

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint are as follows :-

1. Complainant has purchased Bajaj Maxima-II vehicle from opposite party. At the time of purchasing, the sales manager and the service manager of opposite party had agreed high quality and good features for the vehicle. Also, they had assured 35 km mileage and 3 year warranty. Moreover, they informed that this opposite party has an authorized dealership of Bajaj Auto Ltd. and there is expect technicians for servicing the vehicle. (cont…2)

- 2 -

2. For purchasing the vehicle, complainant availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs form Idukki District co-operative bank. Complainant paid this 2 lakhs rupees through bank and Rs.23000/- as price of the vehicle to this opposite party.

3. Opposite party delivered this vehicle to complainant on 15.9.2018, but registration was done only on 5.10.2018, but registration was done only on 5.10.2018. Since there was delay of 20 days for getting registration, complainant could not ride this vehicle on the road. It caused heavy loss to complainant.

4. Thereafter, when he rode the vehicle, it was of lesser mileage and there was clutch problem for the vehicle. Moreover, there was engine failure. Due to these problems, complainant brought the vehicle to opposite party for servicing. But, there was not technician there and spare parts of the vehicle were also not there. Therefore, the vehicle was not repaired.

5. Complainant made a complaint to S.I. of Police, Idukki, as per that, the service manager of Bajaj Company assured the complainant for rectifying the defects of the vehicle. Thus, the defects was rectified at the time by Surya Motors which was the service centre of them. But, thereafter, the defects again surfaced. Then, complainant approached K.P. Motors, India which was the service centre of Bajaj Motors at Ernakulam and the defects was rectified by them.

6. Due to the delayed registration by the acts of opposite party, complainant did not get warranty for servicing the vehicle. Because, Bajaj Company issues warranty for the vehicle only when the service details updated at Bajaj portal within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle. But this opposite party was failure to do that. Therefore, this opposite party is liable for lost the warranty period of the vehicle.

7. Since the warranty lost by the acts of this opposite party, complainant had to pay the service amount. Opposite party is responsible to do proper servicing of the vehicle. But he did not do anything. So, opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the acts of service deficiency and unfair trade practice. Hence complainant prayed for the following reliefs :- (cont…3)

- 3 -

(a) Opposite party may be directed to replace the vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle. (b) Opposite party may be directed to pay compensation. (c) Other possible reliefs.

8. This Commission has served the notice to opposite party. Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed written version. Contentions of opposite party are briefly follows :

According to opposite party, they are not liable for warranty issues and manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Only manufacturer is liable for the above said issues. Therefore, manufacturer is a necessary party in this complaint. But, he not arrayed as a party.

This opposite party is only a dealer and authorized service centre of Bajaj Auto Ltd. So, this opposite party has authority only to repairs and services of the vehicle as per the direction from manufacturer. This opposite party has no authority to decide either replacement or refund the price of the vehicle.

After the delivery of the vehicle, it had some defects due to the driving faults of complainant. This opposite party has completely rectified these defects without receiving any payment from complainant. However, complainant has made so many false allegations against this opposite party.

The manufacturer has given 3 year warranty for the vehicle of complainant. If there is any manufacturing defects, it has to be proved by expert opinion.

On 10.11.2018, the alleged vehicle was completely repaired by the service manager of Bajaj Company. Then on 16.11.2018, complainant again approached opposite party for solving low speed of the vehicle. It also was rectified by opposite party. Then he did not approach opposite party with any complaint.

Whereas, complainant was made a complaint against this opposite party to Idukki Police Station. It was decided as per the direction from S.I. of Police, that the defects would be rectified at Surya Motors, Kottayam on 21.11.2018. (cont….4)

• 4 -

But complainant did not come there at that time. Allegations against opposite party is wrongly made by complainant. Complainant has evil intention to abolish the institution of opposite party. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed with cost.

9. Complainant has adduced evidence by proof affidavit and 13 documents were produced. These were marked as Exts.P1 to P13. Complainant was examined as PW1. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence. So many chances were given to opposite party for adducing evidence. But he did not get ready for evidence at any time. Hence evidence was closed. Since there was not ready for hearing from both sides, case was taken for orders. Both parties have not filed any argument notes.

10. Issues which arises for consideration are as follows :-

(a) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party ?

(b) If so, what reliefs complainant is entitled to ?

11. Findings :

We have perused the records and documents. Ext.P1 is delivery challan issued from opposite party. As per this document, the delivery of the vehicle to complainant is on 15.9.2018. As per Ext.P4, the temporary registration certificate was issued only on 4.10.2018. So it is understood that there was 19 days delay for getting Temporary registration from this opposite party. According to warranty, complainant stated that opposite party has assured 3 year warranty at the time of purchase. Also, it is admitted by opposite party in written version that the vehicle has 3 year warranty. According to opposite party, after the delivery of the vehicle to complainant, it had some minor defects due to the driving faults of complainant and it was rectified by them without received any payment from complainant. This implies that vehicle developed defects soon after delivery. Opposite party has not proved their contention that these minor defects at the first time was due to the driving faults of complainant. But they admitted that there was some defects for (cont….5)

• 5 -

the vehicle at the first time from the date of delivery of the vehicle. Complainant has produced the bills which were paid the amount for servicing the vehicle. As per these documents, i.e., Exts.P8 to P10, complainant has paid totally Rs.7, 017/- for servicing the vehicle to Japan Diesels, Surya Motors and K.P, Motors India respectively. It was done on 21.11.2018 and 2.3.2019. Opposite party also submitted as per written version that they have only an authorized dealership of Bajaj Company and also they are the authorized service centre of the company. It is evidence as per Exts.P8 to P10, that proper servicing of the vehicle was not done by this opposite party. But after the complaint to S.I. of Police, Idukki, servicing of the vehicle was done at Surya Motors and Japan diesels on 21.11.2018. According to our view, dealer has responsibility to rectify the defects which are seen soon after the delivery of the vehicle. It is not evident that the defects was rectified by this opposite party. Complainant has not alleged that there is manufacturing defect for the vehicle.

12. Opposite party has not proved their contentions. It is admitted that they are the dealer of Bajaj Company and they delivered the vehicle to complainant. We are of the considered view that if there is any manufacturing defect for the vehicle, manufacture is only liable. Here, complainant has no allegation about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.

13. From the deposition of PW1, it is clearly stated that the defects of the vehicle was rectified. But it was done with payment by complainant. We are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to rectify the defects of his vehicle without payment. Because, the defects are within warranty period.

14. Opposite party assured 3 year warranty for the vehicle. If there any defects exist for the vehicle, dealer is responsible to solve these defects with a complaint made to the Company. But it is not seen that this opposite party was taken any steps to solve the issues raised by complainant. Eventhough opposite party is a dealer, he is liable to settle the issues raised about the vehicle which was sold to them. Though opposite party stated that the vehicle has 3 year warranty, he was not given an intimation to the Bajaj Company about the allegation of vehicle (cont……6)

- 6 -

of complainant. It is the duty of this opposite party and he had to taken initiative steps for rectify the defects. But this opposite party did not take such steps to rectify the defects. There was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

15. Hence, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,017/- which was paid by complainant for servicing the vehicle and also opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceedings to complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order, till its realization.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of November, 2021

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont……7)

- 7 -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Shijo Janardhanan.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Form 19.

Ext.P2 - Stock transfer note.

Ext.P3 - Delivery challan.

Ext.P4 - Temporary certificate of registration.
Ext.P5 - Copy of policy certificate.

Ext.P6 - Form 17 trade certificate.

Ext.P7 - Letter issued to RTO, Idukki, by the complainant.

Ext.P8 - Receipt issued by Japan Diesels, Ponkunnam.

Ext.P9 - Tax invoice dated 21.11.2018.

Ext.P10 - Tax invoice dated 2.3.2019.

Ext.P11 - Letter issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.P12 - Letter issued by the Health Inspector, Kattappana to complainant.

Ext.P13 - Copy of delivery certificate.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT