BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 26/08/2009

Date of Order : 31/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 459/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

On 15-06-2006, the complainant purchased a Ford Ikon Car from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 2^nd opposite party. The vehicle was registered before the registering authority bearing Registration No. KL-7-BC-7746. Time and again the complainant had to approach the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to rectify the various defects of the vehicle even in spite of the warranty issued by the opposite parties till 19-06-2009. He had to suffer a lot of inconveniences and mental agony due to the poor performance of the vehicle. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the vehicle or to get the price of the vehicle refunded with interest together with compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :-

The complaints reported by the complainant are minor in nature and natural in a vehicle regularly used. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for against the 1^st opposite arty.

3. The defense of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties :-

The warranty of the vehicle as well as the extended warranty of the vehicle had already expired. The complaint has been filed after 22-08-2009 which is beyond the warranty period. The complainant's vehicle was promptly attended to by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. The minor complaints raised by the complainant were promptly attended to and rectified by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and the complainant has endorsed satisfaction of service on the respective job cards after test drive and before taking delivery of the vehicle. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on his side. The witness for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The points that came up for consideration are as follows : -

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the disputed car with a new one or to get refund of the price of the car?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant?

3. Costs of the proceedings?

6. Point No. i. :- During evidence, the complainant admitted that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties duly and promptly attended to the complaints of the vehicle reported by him without demur. It is further stated that at present, the vehicle has no defect. The very statement goes to show that the complaint is unsustainable. In short to say that there is no case between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties vehemently contended that action must be taken against the complainant under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. This Forum is bonafide to settle a dispute, if any as found between the parties amicably only. There does not arise a question of answerability, if not proved on either side. In this case, we find no grounds to go further. The proceedings in this complaint stands closed. hence for reasons stated above.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========