IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 28th day of September, 2015
Filed on 02.03.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.65/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Chichu. P. 1. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd.
Thakidiyil Hosue (FIAL) 8-19, MIDC Industrial
Muhamma P.O. Area, Ranjangaon, Pune
Alappuzha
(By Adv. K.B. Anilkumar) 2. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.
Nettoor Maradu Panchayat
Cochin, Ernakulam
((By Adv. Menon & Menon
Associates – for opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. R.F. Motors, ValiyachudukaduAlappuzha
(By Adv. RajaniK.N.)
ORDER
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of a Fiat Punto Active car (KL-32-B-1218). It has purchased from the 3rd opposite party on 16th of September, 2009 for Rs.5,02,922/-. The second opposite party is the authorized service dealer of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. After the said purchase water was going inside the car because of manufacturing defect in inner beading. When the complainant assuring that it intimated to the third opposite party send back the complainant assuring that it will be rectified in the first service. On 11.11.2009 the complainant entrusted the vehicle for first service but the opposite party was not at all ready to rectify the manufacturing defect. After so many requests made by the complainant the opposite party rectified the said complaint. Again on 21.4.2010 the complainant notified the defective functioning of the back side shock absorbers and wear out of back left side tyre, then second opposite party assured that it will be rectified on second service. The complainant gave the vehicle for the second service on 16.9.2010 but without curing the defects and without washing the vehicle was returned. Moreover inside the service centre because of negligence from the service persons the vehicle hit with some other vehicle and got damaged. Thereafter the vehicle showed serious problems like starting trouble, tachometer and reverse light not working etc. When the complainant gave for servicing to the second opposite party, they told the complainant that it is not serious problem and they returned the vehicle after servicing. Thereafter also several problems noted by the complainant. So he again entrusted the vehicle for repairing. The third opposite party kept the vehicle for 21 days without proper answer. Now the vehicle is unable to use for drive the complainant has to travel more than 150 kms. relating to work apart from travelling due to personal reasons. Due to non delivery of vehicle for 21 days complainant had to make additional expenses. There was deficiency in service in rendering the service to the complainant and also manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to take back the defective vehicle and instead of that a new vehicle has to be given or in the alternative to gave back the purchase price with interest or directing the opposite parties to cure the defect of where out of tyre and bubbles formation along with compensation.
2. Notice issued against the first opposite party was served. But not filed version. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On the occasions, when the complainant had brought the vehicle to the workshop of the second opposite party with certain alleged complaints such of those complaints were attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. On each occasion, the complainant used to take the delivery of the vehicle after personally inspecting the same and being satisfied with the vehicle. There is no merit under the allegation of the complaint that the vehicle is unable to be used because of the alleged troubles.
3. The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The vehicle sold to the complainant by the third opposite party does not suffer from any manufacturing defect whatsoever. There has been no deficiency in service on the part f the third opposite party who promptly attended to whenever the complainant called upon them. Complainant brought his vehicle to the opposite party within 2 days after purchasing it on account of accident repairs. The damages were rectified and thereafter the vehicle was brought to the opposite party for its first free service and it was only at that time, the complaint regarding the inner beading on the door of the vehicle was brought to the notice of this opposite party. This opposite party promptly rectify the said defect. The problems like starting trouble and tachometer not working first brought to the notice of the opposite party only on 3.2.2011, the opposite party duly repaired the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. When the opposite party found that the CM Unit was damaged, they repaired the said unit when parts were received from the first opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. There were no serious problems in the vehicle alleged by the complainant. Paint peeling and bubble formation occurred when the vehicle is left throughout exposed to sun and rain without being parked in any shed. Hence the said complaint cannot be termed manufacturing defect. The third opposite party has promptly serviced the vehicle without causing any undue delay in delivering the same. The vehicle sold to the complainant by the third opposite party does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief sought for as there has been no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Exts.A6 to A8 were marked subject to objection. An expert commissioner was examined as CW1. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The third opposite party’s witness was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Second opposite party was examined as RW2.
5.The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2)Whether the complainant entitled to get any reliefs?
6.It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the third opposite party on 16.9.2009.According to the complainant, within a short time of purchase, the vehicle showed complaints because of the manufacturing defect.The opposite parties filed version stating that there was no manufacturing defect on the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.At the same time the second opposite party admitted in the version that when the complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of the second opposite party with certain alleged complaints, the service personnel had inspected the vehicle on each occasion and such of those complaints noticed being minor in nature attended to the satisfaction of the complainant.The third opposite party admitted in the version that they promptly rectified the complaints to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.Apart from that they are also admitted that the problems like starting trouble and tachometer not working were first to the notice of the third opposite party only on 3.2.2011.According to the third opposite party when they took the complainant’s vehicle to their Ernakulam Branch on inspection thereon they found that the BCM Unit was also damaged.According to the complainant the third opposite party kept the vehicle for 21 days without proper answer.But third opposite party stated in the version that the delay was occurred in obtaining required parts from the first opposite party for vehicle.One of the main allegations of the complainant is that the non delivery of vehicle for 21 days caused much financial loss to the complainant.
At the time of evidence an Expert Commissioner and Advocate Commissioner were appointed to inspect the vehicle.The report filed by them was marked as Ext.C1.In Ext.C1 the expert commissioner specifically stated that, “the rust on vehicle barely three years old is due to poor build quality and the tyre wear is attributed to manufacturing defect.”Moreover while he was examined as CW1 and he categorically stated that, “
From the forgoing discussions it is clear that the vehicle purchased on 16.9.2009 was taken for rectifying the defects on several times, even though most of the defects were rectified the rust on the vehicle is still existing as per Ext.C1 report. Large number of visits to the workshop within a short time of purchase of the vehicle for removing the defects is sufficient to draw the inference that the vehicle is a defective one. Hence it is the bounden duty of both manufacturer and dealer to attend the defects and makes it a defect free vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that when the vehicle entrusted with the third opposite party for repairing, it remained there for 21 days. No justifiable explanation put forth for the delay caused in repairing. It is true that during this period the complainant was deprived of use of vehicle and he needs to be suitably compensated for the same.
In the result, complaint allowed partly. The complainant is directed to produce the vehicle before the 3rd opposite party at the earliest and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to rectify all the defects in the vehicle at free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within two weeks. The opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Chichu. P. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Tax invoice dated 16.9.2009
Ext.A2 - Warranty
Ext.A3 - Copy of the job slip dated 21.4.2010
Ext.A4 - Copy of the job slip dated 2.2.2011
Ext.A5 - Copy of the job slip dated 16.9.2011
Ext.A6 - Statement of account (Subject to objection)
Ext.A7 - Service history (Subject to objection)
Ext.A8 - Email
CW1 - Feril James Thomas (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Raji Raj (Witness)
RW2 - Jayan. R. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - True copy of the print out of online registration details
Ext.B2 - True copy of strategic declaration of Fiat Company
Ext.B3 - True copy of the print out of online service history of the complainant’s
Vehicle
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by: - pr/-
Compared by:-
