IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 10/2012 (Filed on 04.01.2012)
Between:
John Mathew,
Punnamoottil House,
Kakkudumon,
Athikkayam, Ranni,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv. George Thomas-
Elavinamannil) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd.,
B 19, Ranjangaon,
MIDL Industrial Area,
Ranjangaon – 412 210,
Taluk Shirer, Dist. Pune,
Maharastra, Rep. by its-
President & Chief Executive-
Officer, Rajeev Kapoor.
2. RF Motors, VMB Road,
Pathadipalam, Kochi – 33,
Rep. by its Customer Relation-
Manager, Rajesh Mathew Manjooran.
Addl. 3. RF Motors, Nannuvakkad,
Pathanamthitta, Kozhencherry,
Main Road, Pathanamthitta.
(ByAdv. Anil. S. Raj counsels for
opp. parties 2 & 3) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.
2. Complainant’s case as per the original complaint and as per the amended complaint is that he is the registered owner of a 2009 Model Fiat Linea Emotion car manufactured by the 1st opposite party bearing Reg.No.KL-03/S-1020 which is purchased from the 2nd opposite party on 24.06.2009 and he was using the car from its purchase onwards. While so on 19.05.2011, when he was driving the car through M.C. Road, he noticed an indication on its monitor showing oil pressure insufficient at Edanjillam near Thiruvalla. Such problem should not have occurred in a car that has done only 49405 km. He informed the matter immediately to the 2nd opposite party who advised the complainant not to drive the car further. Thereafter the workers of the 2nd opposite party came to the spot and towed the car to their workshop at Kochi on the same day itself. The 2nd opposite party returned the car after repairs only on 29.09.2011. They kept the car at their workshop in an open space without doing any repairs by saying spare parts are not available inspite of the complainant’s regular enquiries. During this period, complainant hired vehicles for his daily traveling in connection with his employment by paying Rs.3,000/- per day as taxi charge. 1st opposite party has offered warranty for 24 months or up to 80000 kms. and they have also given extended warranty for a further period of 24 months or 160000 kms. All the mechanical problems occurred within the period of warranty. Though they have offered free services they have charged the complainant for their repairs during the warranty period. The car is emitting excessive black smoke and the acceleration does not function after the engine reaches 2000 RPM. The design of the engine and other parts are not suitable for Indian road conditions and climate. The road clearance of the car is not suitable to Indian roads. The tyres of the car are getting depleted even much before the life expectancy guaranteed by the tyre manufacturer which compelled the complainant to purchase seven tyres. The performance of the car was quite contrary to what the manufacturer promised at the time of purchase. Break pads and the clutch system and wiper system damaged within 45154 kms. All the repairs and replacement were charged by the 2nd opposite party. All these problems are due to the manufacturing defects of the car. Opposite parties are fully aware of the said manufacturing defects of the car and they have purposely suppressed this problems to the complainant at the time of its purchase. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.8.5 lakhs for the car including tax. The service rendered by the opposite parties does not commensurate with the amount of money spent by the complainant for the said car. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of Rs.9,71,523/- from the opposite parties under various heads including the expenses of the complainant along with an order directing the opposite parties to take back the present car and give a new car of the same type and to pay the cost of this proceedings.
3. In this case, 1st opposite party is exparte and 2nd and 3rd additional opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions and additional versions with common contentions.
4. The main contentions of the 2nd opposite party and the additional 3rd opposite party are as follows: According to them there is no cause of action against additional 3rd opposite party as there is no allegations of deficiency in service against the additional 3rd opposite party and hence additional opposite party is a necessary party to this proceedings. Further, this complaint is filed alleging manufacturing defects to the complainant’s car, which was purchased on 24.06.2009 whereas this complaint is filed only on 04.01.2012, which is after the expiry of about 2 ½ years from the date of purchase of the car and hence this complaint is barred by limitation. Apart from the above contentions, opposite parties denied all allegations raised by the complainant. The complainant had used this car for about 2 ½ years and had driven the car for about 50000 kms. before filing this complaint. The complaints of the car alleged by the complainant are not manufacturing defects and the same are occurred due to the wear and tear sustained due to the use of the car. The allegation that the repairs was delayed for 4 months from 19.05.2011 to 29.09.2011 is not due to the laches or negligence of the opposite parties. But it so happened due to the non- availability of the required spare parts and due to the time taken for getting the approval for warranty from the manufacturer. Moreover, the complaints of the car alleged by the complainant is serious in nature which also required sufficient time for identifying the complaints and rectifying the same as the car had already run 50000 kms. However, by taking into consideration of the complainant’s difficulties and as a gesture of goodwill, opposite parties also offered loaner car amount of Rs.500/- per day to the complainant for everyday the vehicle was not usable. The allegations that the complainant was charged for the repairs during the warranty period is also false. Whatever charges collected from the complainant is for the spare parts and the labour charges which are not covered under the warranty conditions. The complaints of clutch system, break system, wiper system, depletion of tyres etc. are occurred due to the natural wear and tear and not due to any manufacturing defects. Moreover, these types of complaints can occur at about 50000 kms. Whenever, the complainant approached the opposite parties with any complaints to the car the said complaints were properly and promptly rectified by the opposite parties by extending warranty benefits. The allegations that the design of the car is not suitable for Indian road conditions and climate is false as these opposite parties has obtained necessary certifications from the competent authorities before launching this car. The new pleadings incorporated in the complaint by amending the complaint is based on the commissioners report are baseless and will not stand as the commissioners report is biased and is without any basis. The model of the car purchased by the complainant is one of the most fast selling cars of the 1st opposite party. Since the car did not have any manufacturing defects there arose no question of suppression of facts or fraud on the part of the opposite party. Most of the works are done under warranty. The allegation that the car breakdown many times while driving is false. It is clear from the complaint itself as he had alleged only one occasion of break down in this complaint. The complainant’s car has no manufacturing defects or opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. This complaint is filed with false and baseless allegations intended for harassing the opposite party with ulterior motive and for getting unlawful enrichments. None of the prayers in the complaint are not allowable. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and CW1 and Exts.A1 to A20, B1 to B11 and C1 series. After closure of evidence, both sides filed argument notes and they were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that his Fiat Linea Emotion car manufactured by the 1st opposite party, purchased from the 2nd opposite party on 24.06.2009 is having warranty for 2 years or up to 80000 kms. and extended warranty for further period of 2 years or 160000 kms. The said car had showed minor complaints from the purchase onwards and the said minor complaints were temporarily rectified by the opposite parties and the said car was repaired by the opposite party for 12 times so far including 7 major repairs. All the above said complaints are due to the manufacturing defects of the car and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 20 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A20. Ext.A1 is the final labour service bill dated 06.04.2011 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the final labour and parts invoice dated 20.09.2011. Ext.A3 is the job sheet dated 20.05.2011. Ext.A4 is the cash credit invoice for Rs.1,670/-. Ext.A5 is the gate pass dated 29.09.2011. Ext.A6 is the service history of the car. Ext.A7 is the final labour invoice for Rs.1,670/-. Ext.A8 is the final parts and labour invoice dated 04.01.2012 for Rs.7,705/-. Ext.A9 is the retail invoice dated 28.04.2012 for Rs.3,900/- issued by Bindu Oil Store. Ext.A10 is the final labour and parts invoice dated 26.05.2012 for Rs.18,889/-. Ext.A11 is the final labour parts invoice dated 16.07.2012 for Rs.27,850/-. Ext.A12 is the final parts and labour invoice dated 28.01.2013 for Rs.1,51,080/-. Ext.A13 is the final parts and labour invoice for Rs.1,670/-. Ext.A14 is the job slip dated 09.01.2012. Ext.A15 is the job slip dated 12.05.2012. Ext.A16 is the job slip dated 12.10.2012. Ext.A17 is the job slip dated 20.05.2012. Ext.A18 is the job slip dated 30.12.2012. Ext.A19 is the bill dated 06.04.2011 for Rs.21,425/-. Ext.A20 is the bill dated 29.09.2011 for Rs.18,028/-.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that they have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant. They admitted the warranty and the extended warranty offered by them. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle had no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. They have serviced and repaired the car several time free of cost and collected only normal charges for the parts and services not covered by warranty. They have also provided loaner car facility to the complainant. All of the repairs and services done by them are not for any manufacturing defects and all are due to the wear and tear of the car. The complaint alleging manufacturing defect is filed after a lapse of 2 ½ years and after running about 50000 kms. If there is any manufacturing defect that can be realized immediately after purchase and nobody can use a car for more than 2 ½ years, if there is any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Complainant’s car was serviced and repaired several time. But he had not made any complaints of manufacturing defects at any time. The amount claimed by the complainant for his traveling expenses is baseless and false. The last repairs done by them is based on a prejudiced commission report and it was so done as a gesture of goodwill and the total repairing cost was Rs.1,51,081/- which was also waived by the opposite parties as a gesture of goodwill. Now the car had covered more than 70000 kms. and the complainant is using the car. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service or there is no manufacturing defect to the car as alleged by the complainant.
10. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, the service head of the 2nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 17 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and out of the 17 documents, 11 documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B11 as 6 documents were already marked in evidence for the complainant. Ext.B1 is the service history of the complainant’s car. Ext.B2 is the tax invoice dated 28.07.2009 issued for the 1st free service. Ext.B3 is the warranty and owner service policy of the cars like the complainant’s car. Ext.B4 is the 2nd free service tax invoice dated 28.12.2009. Ext.B5 is the 3rd free service tax invoice dated 28.09.2010. Ext.B6 is the copy of a letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by the commissioner. Ext.B7 is the copy of a work memo/questionnaire of the opposite parties submitted before the commissioner and its answers given by the commissioner. Ext.B8 is the job sheet dated 12.10.2012. Ext.B9 is the loaner car allotment paper dated 12.10.2012 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.B10 is the satisfaction note dated 28.01.2013 issued by the complainant in the name of the opposite parties. Ext.B11 is the running repairs tax invoice dated 28.01.2013.
11. Apart from the above evidences, a commissioner was appointed by this Forum on the application of the complainant who had inspected the vehicle and filed his report. He was examined as CW1 and his report etc. are marked as Ext.C1 series. Ext.C1 is the interim commission report dated 24.07.2012 filed by the commissioner. Ext.C1(a) is the letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by the commissioner and the answers to the questionnaire/work memo of the opposite parties. Ext.C1(b) is the final commission report filed by the commissioner.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and observed the following facts.
13. On going through the evidence of the commissioner it is seen that he had exercised his powers and duties not in accordance with the spirit of the authority given to him. Instead of ascertaining the matters sought in the commission application he acted as an enquiry commissioner and issued orders and directions etc. to the opposite parties. He had even given orders for replacing the engine of the car ignoring the matters sought for in the commission application. If the commissioner’s communications, direction and orders are taken for consideration, there is no need for a judgment in this complaint. Therefore, we are ignoring the evidence of the commissioner at the outset, as it is not reliable and hence we are constrained to consider the other evidences let in by the parties.
14. The complainants allegation is that his car showed manufacturing defects from its purchase on wards and the opposite party repaired the car for several time and the opposite parties has not rectified the said defects and they have charged the complainant even for the free services also. But on a perusal of the evidences it is seen that the complainant raised the said allegations after a lapse of about 2 ½ years of purchase and after using the car for 49405 kms. Moreover, he had not adduced any evidence for any major repairs including any repairs for any manufacturing defects or adduced any evidence to show that he was charged for any spare parts or labour charges covered under warranty conditions till April 2011.
15. The documents marked as Ext.A1 and A19 are one and the same documents and it was issued on 06.04.2011. The tax invoice attached with Ext.A1 clearly shows that the said service was a paid service and the cash receipt clearly shows that the complainant had received the car in good condition with full satisfaction, which is evidenced from the signature put by him in Ext.A1. The documents marked as Exts.A3, A4, A7, A13 and A17 are one and the same documents and are connected with the break down dated 19.05.2011. In connection with the said repairs opposite parties charged only Rs.1,670/- as is evidenced from the said exhibits though the actual cost of repairs was Rs.55,000/-. So it is clear that opposite parties had given the benefits of warranty provided by them. Further there is no evidence to show that the breakdown dated 19.05.2011 was due to any manufacturing defect and the connected repairs are for rectifying any manufacturing defects. The documents marked as Ext.A2, A5, A20 are one and the same and is connected with the running repairs vide job card dated 16.09.2011 and for the said repairs also opposite parties charged only Rs.1,028/-, though the actual repairs charges was Rs.18,028/-. This work was also covered under the warranty benefits. The documents marked as Exts.A8 and A18 are one and the same and is connected with the running repairs at 55292 kms. The documents marked as Exts.A10 and A15 are connected with the running repairs done during 62617 kms. The documents marked as Exts.A12 and A16 are connected with the running repairs during 70817 kms. All the above mentioned exhibits clearly shows that the repairs and services connected with the said exhibits are after 2 years from the purchase of the car and is after running 45000 kms. It is seen that the said repairs are not for any major repairs or for rectifying any manufacturing defects and are carried out usually for rectifying the defects caused to a running vehicle due to wear and tear. Further, Ext.B11 shows that opposite parties carried out a major work for Rs.1,51,080/- during the end of 2012 at 70817 km. free of cost. Ext.A10, B9 and B10 shows that the complainant is in receipt of loaner car facility from the opposite parties. Manufacturing defects, if any, should have been noticed immediately after its purchase. There is no evidence showing any manufacturing defects or the complainant has not raised any complaint of manufacturing defect till its breakdown on 19.05.2011. So we feels that the allegation of manufacturing defect after using the car for about 2 ½ years and after running about 50000kms. is baseless.
16. All the facts, circumstances and the available evidence clearly shows that the complainant’s allegation of manufacturing defect will not stand as it was raised after 2 ½ years from the date of purchase and after using and running the car for about 50000 kms. Further it is clear from the evidence that opposite parties had given maximum warranty benefits and the complainant had availed all benefits given by the opposite parties including periodical free services, free repairs, free replacements, loaner car facility etc. which are covered under warranty conditions. That apart complainant has no case of any willful non attendance of the complaints of the car by the opposite parties and he had not even adduced any evidence for substantiating his claim for his traveling expenses during when the car was in the workshop due to the delay in returning the car after repairs. Thus the complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite parties. In the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service against the opposite parties and hence this complaint found not allowable.
17. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : John Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Final labour service bill dated 06.04.2011 issued by the
opposite party.
A2 : Final labour and parts invoice dated 20.09.2011.
A3 : Job sheet dated 20.05.2011.
A4 : Cash credit invoice for Rs.1,670/-.
A5 : Gate pass dated 29.09.2011.
A6 : Service history of the car.
A7 : Final labour invoice for Rs.1,670/-.
A8 : Final parts and labour invoice dated 04.01.2012 for Rs.7,705/-.
A9 : Retail invoice dated 28.04.2012 for Rs.3,900/- issued by
Bindu Oil Store.
A10 : Final labour and parts invoice dated 26.05.2012 for Rs.18,889/-.
A11 : Final labour parts invoice dated 16.07.2012 for Rs.27,850/-.
A12 : Final parts and labour invoice dated 28.01.2013 for Rs.1,51,080/-. A13 : Final parts and labour invoice for Rs.1,670/-.
A14 : Job slip dated 09.01.2012.
A15 : Job slip dated 12.05.2012.
A16 : Job slip dated 12.10.2012.
A17 : Job slip dated 20.05.2012.
A18 : Job slip dated 30.12.2012.
A19 : Bill dated 06.04.2011 for Rs.21,425/-.
A20 : Bill dated 29.09.2011 for Rs.18,028/-.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
DW1 : Satheeshkumar. M
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
B1 : Service history of the complainant’s car.
B2 : Tax invoice dated 28.07.2009 issued for the 1st free service.
B3 : Warranty and owner service policy of the cars
like the complainant’s car.
B4 : 2nd free service tax invoice dated 28.12.2009.
B5 : 3rd free service tax invoice dated 28.09.2010.
B6 : Copy of a letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by the commissioner.
B7 : Copy of a work memo.
B8 : Job sheet dated 12.10.2012.
B9 : Loaner car allotment paper dated 12.10.2012 issued by
the opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
B10 : Satisfaction note dated 28.01.2013 issued by the complainant
in the name of the opposite parties.
B11 : Running repairs tax invoice dated 28.01.2013.
Court Witness:
CW1 : P.L. Pappachan
Court Exhibits:
C1 : Interim Commission report dated 24.07.2012 filed by the
complainant.
C1(a) : Letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by the commissioner.
C1(b) : Final commission report filed by the commissioner.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) John Mathew, Punnamoottil House, Kakkudumon,
Athikkayam, Ranni, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Rajeev Kapoor, President & Chief Executive Officer,
Fiat India Automobiles Ltd., B 19, Ranjangaon,
MIDL Industrial Area, Ranjangaon – 412 210,
Taluk Shirer, Dist. Pune, Maharastra.
(3) Rajesh Mathew Manjooran, Customer Relation Manager,
RF Motors, VMB Road, Pathadipalam, Kochi – 33.
(4) RF Motors, Nannuvakkad, Pathanamthitta, Kozhencherry,
Main Road, Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
