Date of Filing:18.08.2009<br /> Date of Order: 19.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1995 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Dr. T.V. Gopalakrishnan<br /> Chief General Manager (RBI, Retd)<br /> C-2, 1302, L & T South City<br /> Arekere – Mico Layout<br /> Bannerghatta Road<br /> Bangalore 560 076 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Ford India Private Ltd. <br /> S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu<br /> Tamil Nadu 603 204<br /> <br /> 2. Lathangi Ford<br /> Show Room & Service Centre<br /> Lathangi Motors Pvt. Ltd.<br /> 448, Opp. IIM, Bannerghatta Road<br /> Bangalore 560 076 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant had purchased brand new ford fiesta car for Rs. 6,31,902/-. The clutch plate of car was defective and had to be replaced at his own cost although the car had run only 8,094 kms. The clutch plate is an important part of automotive cannot become defective and non-functional unless the company has fitted a substandard one without being subjected to any quality standard test. It is an unfair, unjustifiable trade practice adopted by the company. The car carries guarantee cover. They just do only washing and everything else is liberally charged. The car has a guarantee and extended warranty for 1,00,000 kms or 66 months from the date of purchase. The car was serviced three times and run only 8,094 kms., suddenly developed trouble in the middle of heavy traffic emitting smoke. Car was taken to service center and the complainant was told that the clutch plate is defective and needed replacement at a cost of Rs. 11,000/-. Complainant was shocked to hear this. The matter was taken up with the customer service department and they declained to replace clutch. The day car got struck on the road the complainant had an appointment with Regional Passport Office and could not reach there. This resulted in mental agony, physical strain and loss of money. Complainant has been driving the car for the past two decades. This is fourth car of the complainant. He had no such bad experience. Complainant needs compensation for having put him into inconvenience. The complainant claimed Rs. 10,990/- cost of the clutch and compensation and Rs. 500/- towards conveyance and paper work.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed version admitting that complainant had purchased the vehicle on 07.04.2008 from one of the dealer of opposite party No. 1. Vehicle is covered under regular warranty and extended warranty until 31.03.2011. Free service was provided by the opposite party. Complainant reported the vehicle for service centre on 03.07.2009 and it was observed that clutch plate needed replacement. Vehicle was thoroughly inspected by technical personnel. It was found that clutch system had failed. The experts found that same was due to overriding of vehicle by the complainant. Complainant appears to have greatly contributed for the uneven wearing of the clutch. There was no manufacturing defect. Opposite parties are always ready and willing to answer and rectify each and every query and concern of the complainant. There is no deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite parties. Complainant has not made any case for granting any relief. For all these reasons stated above the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents.<br /> 4. I have gone through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and the documents carefully.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for cost of the clutch plate?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony?<br /> REASONS<br /> 6. It is admitted case that the complainant had purchased Ford Fiesta vehicle for Rs. 6,31,902/-. Vehicle was purchased on 07.04.2008 from opposite party No. 1 and the subject vehicle was covered under regular warranty and extended warranty till 31.03.2011. It is the case of the complainant that clutch plate of the car was defective and he had to service the same at his own cost. Vehicle had run only 8,094 kms. It is the submission of the complainant that clutch plate of the vehicle is an important part of the automotive cannot become defective and non-functional unless the company had fitted a substandard one. The vehicle has guarantee and an extended warranty for 1,10,000 kms or 66 months from the date of purchase. The car was serviced for three times and had run only 8,094 kms. It is the case of the complainant that suddenly the vehicle developed trouble in the middle of heavy traffic emitting smoke and the car was taken to service centre. There it was told that clutch plate was defective and needed replacement. The complainant was shocked to here this. It is absolutely not acceptable. The defence of the opposite party that there was no manufacturing defect of the clutch plate cannot be accepted because the clutch plate which is vital part of the vehicle cannot become defective when the vehicle had run only 8,094 kms. The very fact that warranty covers 1,10,000 kms and requires replacement of clutch only after 8,094 kms definitely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite party that it appears that complainant had greatly contributed for the uneven wearing of the clutch besides the vehicle was driven in a hilly road comprising deep curves and bends. This defence has been taken without any evidence. How can the opposite party could take defence without there being any proof or evidence to substantiate. The opposite party has not produced any evidence before this fora to show that vehicle was driven in a hilly road comprising deep curves and bends. There is absolutely no merit in the defence that the complainant has greatly contributed for this. The complainant submitted in his complaint that he has driving experience of more than two decades and the subject car is not the first car purchased by him, it is his 4th car. The complainant has got experience and the competent authority having issued driving license in favour of the complainant the opposite party cannot be permitted to say that the complainant has no experience and he had contributed largely for the defect in the clutch plate. As regards replacement of clutch plate spending Rs. 10,990/- by the complainant there is no dispute. The opposite party has not disputed this fact. So under these circumstances the complainant is right and justified in claiming sum of Rs. 10,990/- from the opposite parties. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of consumers. The complainant herein being a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act his interests requires to be protected. Opposite party company being a very big and reputed company could have immediately accepted their responsibility, liability and corrected the defect found in the vehicle with regret note. Instead of attending to the problem of complainant soon after receipt of the complaint the company went on passing the matter without there being any basis. Complainant has prayed for grant of compensation for mental agony, loss of time and inconvenience caused to him. The complainant has not produced any materials or documents to show that he has sustained financial loss, mental agony and inconvenience due to sudden failure of clutch plate. Therefore, on the facts and circumstance of the case it is not a fit case to grant compensation. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,990/- the cost of the clutch plate to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,990/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 45 days the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present litigation from the opposite party No. 1.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />