DATE OF FILING : 13.11.2009.
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.213/2009 Between Complainant : S. Chandrasekharan, Mulakuparambil House, 56th Mile, Karadikkuzhy, Peerumedu – 685602, Idukki District. (By Adv: Shiji Joseph) And Opposite Parties : 1. Force Motors Ltd. (Firodia Enterprises), Plot No.3 Sector No.1, Pithamboor Industrial Estate, Pithamboor, Dhar, Madhyapradesh. 2. Poomkudy Force, N.H. 47, Edappally, Kochi, Ernakulam District. 3. The Manager, Poomkudy Force Marymatha Building, Kochuthovala road, Sagara Junction, Kattappana, Idukki District. (All by Advs: K.J. Thomas & George Cherian Karippaparambil)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT) The complainant is a driver in profession and he purchased a new Force tax cab vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 31.7.2007, for his livelihood. The cab was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The services were done by 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party is the branch office of the 2nd opposite party and doing the service of the vehicle sold by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.5,26,500/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle and at that time the opposite party offered a warranty for 36 months or 3 lakhs Kms, for the said vehicle. In September 2007, rust appeared on the doors of the vehicle, so the matter was reported to the opposite party. The opposite party made some correction works, but again rust appeared on the body of the vehicle. On 25.2.2008 the vehicle was brought to the 3rd opposite party's office and the 3rd opposite party took the photographs of the vehicle. The opposite party repainted the doors of the vehicle, but again on 27.2.2009, the vehicle was taken to the 2nd opposite party's workshop for replacing the door. The opposite party kept the vehicle for 27 days for the same. But they did not replace the door as per the offer. The rusting of the doors and the body of the vehicle within 4 months of the purchase of the vehicle is because of the defect in the quality of the materials used. The refusal to rectify the same is a gross deficiency in service of the opposite party. The defect in the doors are due to manufacturing defect, so that the complainant could not be ply the vehicle. It caused severe pain and mental agony to the complainant. So the petition is filed for getting the doors repaired or replaced and also for compensation.
2. As per written version of the opposite parties, this Forum is not having territorial jurisdiction to maintain the complaint. The invoice of the purchase of the vehicle and the insuring of the vehicle were all done at Ernakulam beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant never serviced the vehicle on the 3rd opposite party's office at Kattappana. The 3rd opposite party is not a service centre, it is only an office of the second opposite party for canvassing the order and that was opened on 6.7.2007 only. The service centre of the opposite party is at Kottayam and Ernakulam. As per the warranty issued by the 1st opposite party, manufacturer of the vehicle, the warranty is given for the vehicle for its engine, gear box and rear axle for 36 months or 3 lakhs Kms whichever occurs earlier. For the other parts of the vehicle, the warranty is limited to one year. The warranty is also subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the warranty provided by the manufacturer. No warranty is given to rusting of the vehicle due to misuse of vehicle. In this case, the rusting found in the vehicle was due to misuse and lack of maintenance by the complainant himself. The paid drivers of the complainant has not properly maintained the vehicle. In spite of that, as a good will gesture second opposite party at its Ernakulam work shop has serviced the vehicle free of cost and repainted the vehicle on 25.3.2009 vide job card No.7173. As on 25.3.2009, the complainant's vehicle had already plied 102892 Kms. Thereafter the complainant along with his driver has inspected and took delivery after endorsing full satisfaction of the service done by the 2nd opposite party at the job card. Thereafter almost 10 months have been elapsed and so far no complaint whatsoever has been received from the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any norms or any of the reliefs mentioned in the complaint.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 and C1, Commission report were marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting the replacement of the damaged area and the doors of the vehicle due to rusting. The complainant is examined as PW1. Driving licence of the complainant is marked as Ext.P1. The complainant purchased Force Cruiser Jeep from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5,26,500/- on 31.7.2007. Ext.P2 is the original invoice of the vehicle and the release order of the vehicle is marked as Ext.P3. Warranty certification of the vehicle issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P4. In September, 2007, rust appeared on the doors of the vehicle and the matter was reported to the opposite party. The opposite party done some correction works, but again rust appeared on the vehicle. On 25.2.2008, the vehicle was taken to the 3rd opposite party, they had taken photographs of the vehicle and repainted the vehicle. But the defects were not cured. So the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party requesting replacement of the doors of the vehicle on 27.2.2009, which is marked as Ext.P5. Again 27.2.2009, the vehicle was taken to the 2nd opposite party's workshop for replacing the door. Eventhough the opposite party kept the vehicle for 27 days, they never replaced the door as per the offer. The reply sent by the opposite party dated 27.3.2009 is marked as Ext.P6. Again on 17.4.2009, another information was given to the 1st opposite party by the complainant and that letter is marked as Ext.P7. The copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty is marked as Ext.P8. A commissioner was appointed from the Forum to ascertain the damage caused to the vehicle and the commission report with photographs produced are marked as Ext.C1. The service manager of the 1st opposite party is examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the information for the defect of the vehicle was received only after 1 lakh Km of the use of the vehicle. The opposite parties never provided guarantee for the rust, paint etc. of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party is having a business canvassing office at Kattappana. The customer care manager of the vehicle Mr.B.Mahesh inspected the disputed vehicle at Kattappana office. The case was that, rust affected on the vehicle. The manager never visited the Kattappana office of the vehicle on 25.2.2009. In Ext.P8, the terms and conditions of the warranty in page 31, as condition No.(d), it is written that body panels, doors, Bonnet, Roof and other sheet metal components are covered, for complaints like cracks and corrosion. But it is subject to the 6(3) of the conditions.
The complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 31.7.2007, as per Ext.P2 invoice by paying an amount of Rs.5,26,500/-. He is a taxi driver having valid driving licence. After 4 months of the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle showed major complaint of rust affected on the body of the vehicle especially on the doors. Ext.C1 commission report shows that almost all parts of the vehicle were affected by the rust. It is also written that the parts on which the rust affected on the vehicle are the side of the head light, left side of the wind shield glass, 2nd door frame of the left rear side portion, on the left body bottom portion, of the vehicle, inner bottom portion of the right side door, in the door frame of the front door. Several portions near to front wind shield, inside the bonnet near the portion of the wind shield, in the platform of 2nd row sheet, both left and right foot board, so entire body of the vehicle has been affected by rust. The photographs in 19 numbers also produced by the commissioner showing the same. As per Ext.C1 report about more than half of the body of the vehicle has been affected by rust, but the amount for the repair is not mentioned by the commissioner. As per Exts.P7 and P5 letter, the matter was duly informed to the opposite party by the complainant. And in the reply issued by the 1st opposite party, admitted that they have attended rusting issue of the vehicle and offered the prompt service in the future also. So it is admitted by the opposite party that rust has been affected on the body of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The opposite party serviced the vehicle in the rust issue. According to the complainant, rust were appeared in the month of September, 2007 onwards even after 2 months of the purchase of the vehicle, and on 25.2.2008, the vehicle was taken to the 3rd opposite party's and photographs were taken by the opposite party. They offered the replacement of the doors. As per the opposite party, rust were appeared on the vehicle because of the misuse of the complainant and lack of proper maintenance of the vehicle. The defect was informed to the opposite party only after when the vehicle plied 1,02,892 Kms. The vehicle was serviced in free of cost and repainted the same on 27.2.2009. The warranty offered to the vehicle is subject to the terms and conditions. The condition 6(3) of the warranty states that, damages arising out of or due to negligent or improper handling of vehicle or any part thereof, during storage or transportation, no warranty will be offered.
But it is admitted by the opposite party that it is written in the warranty condition as condition No.9, that, warranty is offered, subject to the terms and conditions detailed there in, warranty is offered on the items mentions in Schedule III below only for 12 months from the date of sale of vehicle or 1 lakh Kms run of the vehicle, whichever occurs earlier. (d) body panels, doors, bonnet, roof and other sheet metal components covered for complaints like cracks and corrosion, it is written in the page 31 of the warranty condition. So we think that rust and corrosion will also includes in the warranty condition of the vehicle. The opposite party never proved that the vehicle produced before the opposite party, for the first time for the same complaint, is after the expiry of the period of the warranty. So we think that the opposite party admitted that they are having an office at Kattappana and it is not service centre, it is a business canvassing office. So it means that the opposite party is having business at Kattappana in Idukki district in which the Forum is having jurisdiction. The manager of the opposite party inspected the vehicle at 3rd opposite party office. Photographs produced by the commissioner also shows that the vehicle is affected with rust in major portion of the body. So the opposite party is duly bound to repair the vehicle, the defect of the body of the vehicle. The opposite party denied the same and so the complainant filed several complaints to the opposite party including Ext.P6 to the opposite party. But the opposite party never turned up which is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So we direct the opposite party to repair the complainant's vehicle without defect.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to repair the body of the complainant's vehicle affected with rust or pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within 2 months of receipt of a copy of this order and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2010.
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/- SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of the Complainant : PW1 - Chandrasekharan On the side of the Opposite party : DW1 - B. Mahesh Exhibits : On the side of the Complainant : Ext.P1 - Copy of the driving licence of the complainant. Ext.P2 - Invoice No.VS0154 dated 31.7.2007 of the vehicle issued by the oppositeparty. Ext.P3 - New vehicle release order No.VS0154 dated 31.7.2007 from the oppositeparty. Ext.P4 - Warranty certification of the vehicle, issued by the opposite party. Ext.P5 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party dated 27.2.2009. Ext.P6 - Copy of the letter from the opposite party to the complainant dated 27.3.2009. Ext.P7 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party dated 17.4.2009. Ext.P8 - Copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty. Ext.C1 (series) - Commission Report dated 20.3.2010 with photographs (19 numbers). On the side of opposite parties : Nil |
