DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 82 of 2015
Date of filing: 19.3.2015 Date of disposal: 22.9.2015
Complainant: Sri Vivek Kumar Maurya, S/o. Om Prakash Maurya, S/2 Anand Vihar, A-Zone, PO: Durgapur – 713 204, PS: Durgapur, Dist: Burdwan, West Bengal.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd.,
Regd. Office: B-19 Ranjangaon Midc Industrial Area, Ranjangaon – 412 210, Taluka: Shirup, Dist: Pune, India.
Local Office at: B.D.Motors Ltd., Junction Mall, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216, Burdwan.
2. B.D.Motors Ltd., Represented by Manager.
Local Office: Junction Mall, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216, District: Burdwan.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Ops as the Ops after selling the vehicle, namely, FIAT GRANDE PUNTO have withdrawn their service centre from this district.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he got information from the publicity and advertisement made by the Ops through different modes that they have extensive network of service centers in and around Durgapur and its surrounding areas within the district of Burdwan and not only that they used to provide mobile service assistance regularly to their customers. Knowing this information and being allured with the said campaign and exhibition of the Ops the complainant purchased one FIAT GRANDE PUNTO (4 wheelers) from the OP-2 and the cost of the said vehicle was of Rs. 5, 03,089=00. The OP-1 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle which has been merged with the Tata Motors. During purchase the OP-1 issued service coupon for 1, 80,000 km. The complainant had obtained two services for the said vehicle on 16.12.2011 & 12.10.2012. Thereafter the OP-2 had withdrawn all service centers for the said car from 2013 without giving any information to the complainant being the purchaser of the said vehicle. Thereafter several written correspondences were made by the complainant requesting for service of the said vehicle in the year 2013 and on 29.8.2014, 05.9.2014, 24.9.2014, 25.9.2014, 27.9.2014, 30.10.2014 and 04.11.2014 but no service centre is at present available in Durgapur and or adjacent to Durgapur within the district of Burdwan. Due to such failure of the Ops the complainant had to incur expenditure of Rs. 50,000=00 or more for its necessary service and repairing. For this reason Ops are bound to take back the vehicle from the complainant and refund the purchase price and to pay cost and expenses as incurred by him. The Ops are also liable to pay compensation for Rs. 50,000=00 to him due to harassment, troubles, loss of services, physical inconveniences and mental agony suffered by him arising directly out of breach of the offer, assurance and duty on the part of the Ops. The complainant made an application to the in-charge, Consumer Assistance Bureau, Durgapur for institution of a case against the Ops for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and thereafter having no alternative the complainant has filed this complaint before the ld. Forum praying for direction to the Ops for making refund of Rs. 5,03,089=00 to him towards the purchase price of the questioned vehicle, compensation of Rs. 50,000=00 due to mental harassment and deficiency in service and litigation cost.
From the record it is evident that on 11.5.2015 the Op-1 was present by filing a petition and prayed time for filing written version and vokalatnama on the next date. The same was allowed and on the same date from the postal track record it was evident that the Op-2 had received the notice from this ld. Forum but chooses not to turn up to contest the complaint. Therefore, on that date the complaint was fixed for ex parte hearing against the OP-2. Though on 11.5.2015 the OP-1 took time for filing written version but thereafter it did not take any step for filing written version and for that reason the case was also fixed for ex parte hearing against the Op-1. On 10.9.2015 the complaint was taken up for final hearing when the complainant was present through his ld. Advocate but the Ops were absent on call. Therefore we took up the hearing ex parte against the Ops.
It is seen by us that the complainant admittedly purchased one FIAT GRANDE PUNTO (4 wheelers) car from the OP-2 and the cost of the said vehicle was of Rs. 5, 03,089=00. During its purchase the complainant was supplied a Warranty and Owner Service Policy book and thereafter Enhanced Warranty was also provided by the OP-2 and for this reason the said vehicle was under warranty coverage for a period of 24 months from the date of its purchase and thereafter the same was also under the coverage of Extended Warranty/Enhanced Warranty for further 26 months from the date of expiry of the original warranty, so the vehicle was under the warranty coverage including Extended coverage for 50 months from the date of its purchase. During purchase the complainant was also provided three free service coupons and from the said booklet it is noticed by us that the complainant obtained two free services. He chose not to obtain first free service. After completion of three free services he was also provided ten paid service coupons of 1, 80,000 km. But the complainant did not avail of the said paid service/s. The allegation of the complainant is that after selling the said vehicle the Ops have withdrawn their service centers in and around Durgapur and its surrounding areas on or within the district of Burdwan inspite of giving assurance through advertisement and through colourful display for the said vehicle. It is stated by the complainant that being allured with the said advertisement and display the complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP-2 as he was assured that he will avail of services for the said vehicle in and around Durgapur and its surrounding areas but as the Ops have withdrawn their service centers from the district of Burdwan, now the complainant has no way for servicing and repairing of the said vehicle through the authorized service centers of the Ops. According to the complainant as the service center is situated in Kolkata, now the complainant is under obligation to ply the vehicle up to Kolkata for servicing or necessary repairing. According to the complainant for such reason service will be more expensive and if he got this knowledge prior to purchase of this vehicle did not choose to purchase the same. The Complainant has stated that such withdrawal of the service centers from this district is an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service of the Ops. It is seen by us that prior to filing of this complaint the complainant made several written correspondences with the Ops through e-mail narrating his problem in respect of servicing and repairing of his vehicle and on every occasion assurance were given by the Ops but the Ops did not take any effective steps and reply positively to the complainant. As the Ops did not take any steps having no alternative the complainant has filed this complaint for redressal of his grievance.
It is an admitted fact that from the date of purchase of the vehicle warranty expired and as the complainant obtained extended warranty for 26 months hence the vehicle is under the coverage of extended warranty period. From the conditions of the extended warranty it is seen by us that in the column no. ‘f’ wherein it is written - “All repairs must be carried out only by the Dealer and its authorized repair centers”. As the complainant had obtained the extended warranty facility now he is under obligation to abide by the all the conditions as mentioned in the warranty clause. In the definition in the extended warranty it is written that the Authorized Repairer will be the supplying dealer that sold the vehicle or authorized repair center of the dealership/manufacturer. In the condition no- ‘o’ of the extended warranty it is written that - “It is a condition of this Policy that The Vehicle must be serviced by the Dealer in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s service schedule and the service must consist of:
- Change of engine oil and filter.
- Checking oil levels in the gearbox and differential and top-up where necessary.
- Checking coolant level and top-up where necessary.
- Checking timing belt (if fitted) and renew if necessary. Timing belts must be replaced at the time and /mileage intervals recommended by the vehicles manufacturer.
Therefore, from the conditions of the extended warranty it is clear that complainant is under obligation to abide by the said clause as mentioned in the booklet of the extended warranty otherwise the said warranty will be vitiated. But as the service centers in and around Durgapur or adjacent of it as well as in the district of Burdwan have been withdrawn by the Ops the complainant became helpless in servicing his vehicle and necessary repairing. In our view after selling the vehicle to the complainant as well as several purchasers, withdrawal of the service center from the district of Burdwan is an example of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops. Moreover where the complainant got the knowledge from advertisement and colourful display that services will be available in and around Durgapur and adjacent to it and after getting such information when the complainant purchased the said vehicle and after few months from his purchase the Ops have withdrawn their service centers from Durgapur as well as from the district of Burdwan, such withdrawal can easily be termed as unfair trade practice in view of sub- section of Section 2 (1)(r) of the C.P. Act, 1986. In the Section 2(1) (r) it is enumerated that:
“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;
(1) the practice of making any statements, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,-
(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be -
- a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services; or
- a promise to replace, maintain or repair any article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out;
In the case in hand through public representation it was displayed that the purchaser of the questioned vehicle will be availed of smooth service in and around Durgapur or adjacent to it and within the district of Burdwan. After getting knowledge from the said display the complainant purchased the vehicle and thereafter the Ops as have withdrawn the service centers from the displayed places in view of the abovementioned sub-section of Section 2(1) of the C.P. Act, it can easily be said that the Ops have adopted unfair trade practice in respect of withdrawn of the service centers in and around Durgapur and adjacent to it. In the instant case the Ops have mentioned some facts/promise in their display and advertisement which became misleading and false later i.e. after the purchase of the said vehicle. Therefore, as the Ops have adopted unfair means for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of their goods and thereafter withdrawn their service centers and did not hesitate to throw out their customers in a very precarious condition, such action can be termed as unfair trade practice keeping in view of the aforementioned section of the C.P. Act.
In the prayer portion the complainant has prayed for refund of the purchased price of the vehicle. But as the vehicle does not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defects which is beyond repair, in our view the complainant is not entitled get back refund of the said amount as sought for. Moreover within the four corners of the complaint no averment has been made out by the complainant that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defects. The complainant has prayed for compensation for mental agony, harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair business of the Ops and in this respect we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get some amount of compensation because he is suffering from mental agony and harassment due to adoption of unfair means of the Ops as mentioned above. It is also an admitted fact that to get rid of his grievance the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum and in this way he had to incur some expenses and for this reason he is also entitled to get some litigation cost.
In para- 8 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that as the Ops have failed to provide service of the vehicle he had to incur expenditure for Rs. 50,000=00 and /or more for necessary servicing and repairing of the vehicle but in this respect the complainant did not annex any cogent documentary evidence in support of such contention and claim. We are unable to find out any document from the record that the complainant went out of this district or wherever it may be for necessary servicing and repairing of the said vehicle therefore, the averment as made out in the para 8 of the complaint has no basis at all, as the complainant has failed to corroborate the same.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the Ops with cost. The Ops shall pay either jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 5,000=00 towards compensation due to adoption of unfair trade practice, out of which 50% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,500=00 shall be paid to the Consumer Legal Aid Account, Burdwan and the balance amount i.e. Rs. 2,500=00 to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, both the amount payable to the Consumer Legal Aid Account, Burdwan and the complainant shall carry penal interest @9% per annum for the default period. The Ops are further directed for making payment either severally or jointly a sum of Rs. 500=00 to the complainant towards litigation cost within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree in execution as per provisions of law.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free
of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
