Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/507

SIMON.K.FRANCIS - Complainant(s)

Versus

FORD INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.BHASURENDRAN NAIR

28 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 507/13

JUDGMENT DTD:28/01/2016

 (Against the order in CC No.1045/2007 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, Dtd:24/04/13)

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Simon K. Francis,

          Kuttikadan House, Thottathil Lane,

          Fatima Nagar, Thrissur.

 

          (By Adv: Sri.V.S. Bhasurendran Nair)

 

                                                                                                          Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,

          R/by its Manager,

          Customer Relationship Centre,

          Ford India Pvt.Ltd., S.P. Koil Post,

          Chengalpattu – 603204

          Tamil Nadu.

 

2. Anil Jain,

          General Manager,

          Ford Business Centre,

          No.1-43 MGR  Road,

          North Veeramanisalai, Chennai-96.

 

3. Uma Sankar,

          General Manager,

          Customer Relationship Centre,

          Ford India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Koil Post,

          Chengalpattu – 603204, Tamil Nadu.

 

4. Vice President,

          Customer Relationship Centre,

          Fort India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Koil Post,

          Chengalpattu-603204, Tamil Nadu.

 

5. M/s. Kairali Ford,

          Kerala Cars (P) Ltd.,

          Illikattu Building,

          Edapally, Cochin

 

6. M/s. Kairali Ford,

          Kerala Cars (P) Ltd.,

          MGF Building, MC Road,

          Mount P.O., Kottayam.

 

7. M/s. Kairali Ford,

          Kerala Cars (P) Ltd.,

          Guruvayur Road, Ayyanthole, P.O.,

          Thrissur

 

8. M/s. The Oriental Insurance Ltd.,

          Guruvayur Road, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur.

 

          (By Adv: Sri.K. Govindankutty for R1 to R4 &

           Adv: Sri. V. Manikantan Nair for R8)

 

JUDGMENT

         

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Complainant in CC No. 1045/07 in the CDRF, Thrissur is the appellant.  He was the owner of a Ford Fiesta car purchased from the 7^th opposite party and insured with the 8^th opposite party.  It is alleged in the complaint that on 23/06/2007 while his driver Shibu was driving the vehicle along the Kottayam to Moolavattom via Kollad through a road submerged in rain water, the vehicle stopped suddenly and it failed to restart.   The complainant informed the 7^th opposite party regarding the incident.  They in turn contacted the 6^th opposite party.  Their attempt to restart the vehicle did not succeed.  The incident was promptly informed to the insurance company.  The 6^th opposite party told the complainant that substantial repair was required.  The 6^th opposite party entrusted the vehicle to another workshop for repairing the vehicle.  The exhaust portion of the engine of the old Fiesta car is not designed to prevent inflow of water.  The complainant was not allowed to see the vehicle during repair.  The opposite parties played unfair trade practice by supplying the vehicle having inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence the complainant approached the Consumer Forum.

          2.      Opposite parties 5, 6, and 7 admitted that on 23/06/2007 the road at the place of incident was submerged in flooded water, because of unprecedented rain.  The 7^th opposite party had deputed expert technician to attend the vehicle.   As the vehicle could not be started it was towed to their service centre in Kottayam.  The 6^th opposite party after inspecting the vehicle found that the engine required substantial repairs.  The complainant was informed about the damage caused due to driving the vehicle through flooded water.  The damage due to water entering into the engine is not covered under the warranty provided.  Hence the complainant was informed accordingly and the cost of repairs was intimated to him.  Repair work started after getting confirmation from the complainant.  The vehicle broke down due to hydrostatic lock while driving the vehicle through water logged road.   It is incorrect to say that the vehicle was entrusted by the 6^th opposite party for repair to a local workshop.  The vehicle was always at the service centre of the 6^th opposite party.  After completing the repair work, the complainant was informed over the telephone.   He was informed about the approximate cost of repair but the complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the vehicle.  The vehicle is presently lying in the service centre of the 5^th opposite party.  This was also intimated to the complainant.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.      The 8^th opposite party in their separate version contended that they had not repudiated the claim of the complainant.  A surveyor was deputed to assess the claim of the complainant and he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42,780/-.   Wilful negligence is committed by the complainant by driving the vehicle though the flooded road.  The 8^th opposite party requested the complainant to submit necessary documents but he did not respond.  Hence letter was sent intimating the complainant that if no document was filed the claim would be closed as no claim.  The complainant did not respond.  There was no deficiency in service on their part.

          4.      Before the Consumer Forum the complainant examined 3 witnesses including himself.  Exts.P1 to P14 were marked on his side.  One witness was examined on the side of opposite parties.  Exts.R1 to R20 were marked on their side.  Exts. X1 and X2 are the inspection reports filed by the Commissioner appointed by the Consumer Forum.  Ext.C1 is the report of Advocate Commissioner appointed by the consumer Forum.  Ext.C2 series of receipts were also marked in evidence.  As per the impugned order, the consumer forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties 1 to 7 to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 invoice for the vehicle Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost.  The complainant is not satisfied with the order, Because the consumer Forum failed to award any amount for the mental agony caused to the complainant, and also failed to award interest for the amount ordered to be paid.  It is not brought to our notice that any appeal filed by the opposite parties is pending.  So the only question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant / appellant is entitled to more compensation as claimed.

          5.      Admittedly, the Ford Fietsa car of the complainant purchased about 5 months back broke down on 23/06/2007,  while the driver of the complainant was driving the vehicle along a flooded road.  The allegation in the complaint is that the vehicle abrubtedly stopped when the vehicle was being driven through flooded road and attempt to restart the vehicle did not succeed.  So obviously attempt was made to restart the vehicle while on the flooded road contrary to the instruction in the service manual.   At the same time the complainant as PW1 admitted that at that point of time there was no defect for the vehicle. The consumer Forum itself observed that there was no evidence that the vehicle was repaired in a workshop other than authorised workshop as claimed by the complainant.  At the same time Ext.X1 report of the expert commissioner’ shows that the defect of the vehicle was repairable and the performance of the engine can be improved by completely overhauling or replacing engine. In such a situation the consumer Forum was really not justified in ordering refund of the price of the vehicle for whatever reason and further it appears that the defect arose as a result of water entering the engine which was not covered by warranty.    It also appears that the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle after he was intimated that the vehicle was repaired.  Apparently he was not ready to pay for the repairs which was necessitated by the fault on his own driver.  The authorised surveyor of the insurance company assessed a damage of only Rs.42,750/- which in the given situation appears to be reasonable. No deficiency in service is alleged on the part of the dealer.  The consumer Forum blindly believed the deposition of PW1 that repair was done in other workshops than the authorised one of the opposite parties.  The consumer Forum awarded damages of Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant and the reliefs already granted, appear to be beyond the eligible claims of the complainant as per law.  He is not entitled to incidental damages like interest paid on the loan availed by him.  Under the above circumstances any further enhancement or award of claims like compensation for mental agony or interest is absolutely unjustified.  In the absence of any appeal by the opposite parties we are not disturbing the order of the consumer Forum but the claims in the appeal are devoid of merit.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- .

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO. 507/13

JUDGMENT DTD:28/01/2016

 

 

nb