BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2017
Filed on : 07-09-2012
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.546/2012
Between
P.S. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, : Complainant
S/o. P.K. Syed Mohammed, (By Adv. Biju Hariharan,
Febin Manzil, Perunna East P.O., M/s. KNB Nair Associates,
Changanassery, Morning Star Building, Kacheripady,
Kottayam-686 102. Ernakulam, Cochin-682 018)
And
1. Force Motors Ltd., : Opposite parties
Mumbai Pune road, (By Adv. George Cherian Karippa-
Akurdi, Pune-411 035., parambil)
rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Poomkudy Force,
a Division of Poomkudy Motors
(P) Ltd., Poomkudy House,
NH 47 road, Edappally,
Kochi-682 024,
rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant purchased a new car, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, bearing registration No. KL-33-C-7574 on payments of Rs. 10,66,402/- towards its price from the 2nd opposite party. At the time of delivery the vehicle had already run 200 kms. When the vehicle was taken to Changanassery, where the complainant resides it was noticed that the car had a very low pick-up and spillage of oil from the engine. Despite reporting this fact to the opposite parties the opposite parties took the matter lightly and told the complainant that it could be rectified at the time of first service at 1000 kms . Though the complainant reported these facts at the time of 1st service the oil leakage was told due to the loosening of the clips connecting the turbo hose pipe. However, the spillage of oil remained continuously . When this fact was brought to the notice during 5000 km service, the 2nd opposite party assured that the defect would be cured permanently during the service at 10 000 kms. On 23-05-2012 the vehicle was produced before the 2nd opposite party for 10000 km service. The vehicle was delivered only on 31-05-2012, but even then the leakage of the oil from the side of the turbo was still persisting. Therefore, on 31-05-2012 the complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties stating that due to the recurrence of the defects is returning the vehicle for replacement and the complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party on 28-07-2012. The opposite party could not detect any defect and therefore the complainant was asked to bring the vehicle on 30-07-2012 and again on 03-08-2012 to get the compression test done. On 07-08-2012 the service engineers of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant at Changanassery and inspected the vehicle. They could not make out or identify any defect. The act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. The engine oil leakage and low pickup experience were due to the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. The complainant is therefore entitled to get refund of Rs. 10,66,402/- with Rs. 85,909/- being the life tax paid with 12% interest from the opposite parties.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties resisted the complaint alleging that the allegations were not correct and seeking dismissal of the complaint.
3. When the matter came up for evidence the complainant examined himself as PW1. Exbts. A1 to A12 were marked. The opposite party examined DW1 to 3 and Exbts. B1 to B18 were marked. Exbt. C1 commission report were also marked in this case.
4. The following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. If so, is the complainant is entitled to the refund, cost, and compensation prayed for?
iii. Reliefs if any to be granted
5. Issue Nos. i and ii. The complainant purchased the vehicle as per Exbt. A1, the photo copy of the sales invoice dated 10-12-2015. The vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 12-12-2015 as seen from Exbt. A2 Photo copy of the RC book. Road tax was paid to the vehicle from 2011 to 2026 as seen from Exbt. A2. Exbt. A4 is the delivery bill issued by the opposite party after pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle on 08-12-2011. It is seen that the vehicle had already run 92 kms. as on 08-12-2011 as seen from Exbt. A4 (a). A4 (b) would go to show that the vehicle had the 1st service at 1235 kms as on 27-12-2011. The next service was at 9952kms on 25-05-2012. Exbt. A5 dated 31-05-2012 is a letter issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party intimating him that if the complaints regarding oil leaking occur again the vehicle will be surrendered before the 2nd opposite party and that he is entitled for the replacement of the vehicle. These notices were served on the opposite party has seen from Exbt. A6 and A7. Thereafter the vehicle is seen to have entrusted to the Assistant Works Manager Shri. Arun Varghese on 05-12-2012 for rectification works at Kms 9480. At that time the defects alleged was "compression leak" Exbt. A9 dated 05-12-2012 is the job card showing the procurement of the complainant for repairs. They were, compression leak tightness of power steering and loosening of hose clip.
This complaint was filed by the complainant before this Forum on 22-09-2012. Exbt. A10 is an advocate notice issued by the complainant on 10-02-2013, after filing this complaint before this Forum alleging compression leak of the engine at 1st nostle and complaints on the working of the AC. This notice was replied by the opposite party as per Exbt. A11 reply dated 28-02-2013.
The opposite party on the other hand argued that the allegation that the vehicle was delivered at 200 kms. was incorrect and the documents of the complainant itself would go to show that the vehicle had run only 92 kms at the time of delivery. The pre-delivery inspection report dated 08-12-2011 produced by the complainant would show that the vehicle had run only 92 kms at the time of delivery. The further allegation regarding low pick up and filling of oil from the engine were not seen raised by the complainant when the vehicle was brought for the 1st service on 23-12-2011. The 2nd opposite party is seen to have serviced the vehicle on 28-12-2011, but at that time the complainant had no grievance regarding the low pickup and oil leakage. Likewise, when they serviced at 4545 kms on 21-02-2012 also the complainant did not have a case that the vehicle had low pickup and oil leakage. The complaint of oil leakage was 1st raised by the complainant was only during the 3rd service at 9942 kms. and that leakage was attended to by the opposite party and the hose clamps were tightened. The cause of oil leak was from the oil separate of hose and that hose was tightened so as to arrest the oil leak. The opposite party examined 3 witnesses and they were subjected to cross-examination. The complainant could not bring out any thing during such cross-examination to show that there was any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The works done by the opposite party during those period under complaint aired by the complainant are shown in the job cards produced by the opposite party on going through job cards which were marked as Exbt. B4, B5 , B6, B7, B8, B9 , B10, B11, and B12 does not disclose that the vehicle had uncontrolled oil leak. The evidence of the witnesses of the opposite party that the oil leakage was due to the reasoning of hose pipe is supported by contemporary documents produced by them. We therefore find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.
The commission report produced as Exbt. C1 is with regard to the situation as on his date the date visit of the commissioner on 03-12-2012. The commissioner had reported inter-alia that there was oil leakage from the engine breather pipe, and differential case he also noted that the air conditioner was not functioning and excess wearing out of the front tyres in addition to the formation of the fungus at the roof upholstery. It is nobody's case that the vehicle was suffering from the defects on the Air conditioner, tyres , doors and roof. The advocate notice is seen to have been issued by the complainant to the opposite parties only subsequent to the filing of this complaint. We therefore find no bonafides in the allegation made in the complaint. Issues are therefore found against the complainant.
Issue No. iii. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 10-12-2011
A2 : Copy of certificate of registration
A3 : Copy of tax licence
A4 : Copy of delivery bill
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 02-06-2012
A6 : Copy of A.D. Card
A7 : Copy of postal receipt
A8 : delivery slip dt. 05-12-2012
A9 : Copy of repair order dt. 05-12-2012
A10 : Copy of letter dt. 10-02-2013
A11 : Copy of letter dt. 28-02-2013
A12 : Copy of letter dt. 22-11-2012
C1 : Commission Report dt. 03-12-2012
Opposite party's Exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Authorization letter dt. 09-07-2014
B2 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B3 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B4 : Repair order dt. 28-12-2011
B5 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B6 : Repair order dt. 25-05-2012
B7 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B8 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B9 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B10 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B11 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B12 : Repair order dt. 31-01-2013
B13 : Repair order dt. 20-03-2013
B14 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B15 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B16 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B17 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
B18 : Repair order dt. 12-12-2011
Depositions:
PW1 : P.S. Mohammed Ali Jinnah
DW1 : N. Sunil Kumar
DW2 : Suresh. S.
DW3 : Arun Chand
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post : By Hand:
