BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 2nd day of June 2017
Filed on : 06-02-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.92/2015
Between
Ummer R.M., : Complainant
S/o. V.P. Kunju Mon, (By Adv. Sikha G. Nair,
6 A City Mest, K.N. Sivasankaran & Associates
Shenai Road, “Sree Lakshmi”. T.D. East road
Kochi-682 017. Kochi-682 002)
And
1. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Plant and Corporation Office, ( ByAdv. Shahier Singh, Kochhar
S.P. Koli Post, & Co., Shahier Singh, Advocates
Chengalpetta,-603 204, & Consultants, 11th floor, Tower
rep. by it Managing Director. -A, DLF Towers, Jasola District
2. Kairali Ford, 508 A, Centre, New Delhi-110 025.)
Illikkattu Building,
Kunamthai, Near Edappally ( 2nd and 3rd O.P. By Adv.Rahul
Gate, N.H. 47, Edappally Post, Sasi, 2nd floor, Jaison building,
Ernakulam, rep. by its CEO-682024. P.T. Usha road, Cochin-4)
3. Kairali Ford Service Centre,
N.H. Bypass Junction, Palarivattom,
Kochi-682 025, rep. by its CEO.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant is a Senior citizen retired from the defense service. He purchased a brand new Kairali Ford, Ecosport Ambient 1.5D car from the 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 22-08-2014 for a total price of 8,51,220/- . On 11-09-2014 when the complainant was travelling in the car to attend a marriage reception the car broke down and yellow lamp was flashing in the display of dash board. Immediately, the complainant perused the handbook which showed the yellow light burns when there is engine fault. The complainant called the 3rd opposite party a person attended the call and intimated the complainant to call the toll free number for wayside assistance. After three and half hours a pickup van came from the 3rd opposite party and the car was carried to the workshop. After inspection according to the technician there was nothing seriously wrong with the engine and advised to maintain full fuel in the fuel tank. In the checkup report it was noted that 'no fault detected'. It was not possible for the complainant to maintain minimum fuel level in the absence of an indication for the same. Again on 16-09-2014 the vehicle again broke down due to shortage of fuel. The technician suggested the complainant to install a cluster unit in the car for indicating the low level of fuel or buy a higher variant of Ecosport vehicle. Since the car purchased by the complainant was a premium class vehicle it should have an indicator to show the minimum fuel level . The 1st opposite party had manufactured the car without having such a facility is a deficiency in the manufacture and unfair trade practice. The 1st opposite party had conceled the fact that fuel indicator is absent in this variant, while he purchased the car. The complainant therefore prayed for refund of the amount paid or to replace the car with another one having the facility to indicate low fuel level. Complainant also seeks Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.
3. Notice were issued to the opposite party. The opposite parties appeared and resisted the complaint by filing the version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. Contention of the 1st opposite party.
5. There was no defect for the vehicle and there was no deficiency in service rentered by 1st opposite party. Opposite party 1 is not liable to replace the vehicle and the complaint does not fall within the ambit of C.P. Act , and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 1st opposite party is not liable to any service deficiency committed by the other opposite parties. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The complainant has falsely alleged that there are no gauges in the cluster panel of the vehicle for indicating low fuel level. Fuel gauges would give reasonable estimate of the availability of the fuel in the tank even though there was no provision in this particular vehicle to calculate the exact miles the vehicle would go with the available fuel. The complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention and the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
6. The contentions of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are as follows:
7. The 3rd opposite party on 11-09-2014 had attended the complaint raised by the complainant. There was no fault or shortcomings of the vehicle and the brake down occurred only due to the fact that there was no fuel in the vehicle . The inadequate filling of the fuel in the fuel tank was the sole cause of brake down. the owner's Manuel provided to the complainant along with the car clearly mandates to maintain a minimum volume of fuel and to avoid running of the fuel. Failure on the part of the complainant to comply with the advise rendered by the assisting team to ensure maintenance of essential fuel limit was the sole cause of brake down. There are four variants of Ford Ecosport cars in the market. They are ambient, trend, titanium and titanium (O) . The ambient version is the lowest version and it has no provision to indicate "distance to empty feature' . The brochure given to each and every customer specifically shows the facilities provided in each vehicle. The allegation that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by providing a vehicle with no facility to indicate the low fuel level are false and baseless. The opposite party has acted with bonafides. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. The complainant had produced two documents supporting his claim in addition to the proof affidavit filed. The opposite party filed the brochure and extract of the service details, along with their version. Exbt. A1 is the photo copy of the purchase bill dated 22-08-2014 issued in favour of the complainant. Exbt. A2 is the photo copy of vehicle report card dated 12-09-2014.
9. The following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
10. Issue No. i. The complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbs. A1 and A2 documents were marked. He was subjected to cross-examination by the opposite parties. During cross-examination the complainant admitted that there was a fuel gauge attached to the cluster of meters, whereas his allegation in the complaint was that there was no fuel gauge at all provided in the car. He was also given evidence that he was not aware of the features available to each variant. The complainant did not take out a commission to bringing evidence regarding his allegation of manufacturing defects and unfair trade practice . The evidence brought in by the complainant as Exbts. A1 and 2 as aforesaid could not prove any of the allegations narrated by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore we find that the issue is against the complainant.
11. Issue No. ii. Having found issue number (I) against the complainant we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, we do not propose to pass any orders regarding costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of June 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 retail invoice dt. 22-08-2014 A2 : Copy of vehicle report card 12-09-2014
Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post:
