IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 27th day of July, 2020
Filed on 09.08.2016
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.259/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Omprakash.D 1. Geeyam Motors
Komacham Veli Hosue Oppo. EMS Stadium
South Aryad Alappuzha
Avalukkunnu.P.O
Alappuzha - 688006 2. Geeyam Motors Pvt. Ltd
( Adv.Jayan.C.Das) 11/336, NH-47 Bypass Nettoor.P.O,
Cochin -682304. (Adv. Shafik M. Abdulkhadir)
3. Cheverlet Sales India (P) Ltd
Block-B, Chandrapura
Industrial Estate,
Halol-389351, Panchamahal
District, Gujarat, India
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
Material averments in the complaint briefly discussed are as follows:-
During November 2013 Complainant purchased a Chevrolet SAIL Sedan LS ABS model white colour car and it had a warranty for 3 years. It was purchased for self employment. It was registered as taxi permit with Reg.No. KL 04-AF-1530. The total price of the vehicle was Rs. 7,15,327/- and he had taken a finance from M/s Kodak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd. and the EMI was Rs.12,650/- for 5 years. From day one onwards the vehicle had complaints and the matter was reported to Chevrolet service centre. Now the vehicle is not in good condition. There is abnormal sound during driving. Now it is told that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. There was problem in the painting and it was repainted with cream colour which resulted in mismatching. The body of the car is getting rusty. Now the car is having problems such as air bag signals is blowing always, sound is coming from the right side while driving, lesser mileage, non functioning of AC, lower pickup, body getting rusted and power steering becoming tight. Hence opposite party may be directed to refund the amount with 10% interest along with compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost.
2. 2nd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
1st opposite party is only a branch of the 2nd opposite party and the version is filed on behalf of them also. Complainant has not placed the entire facts relating to the issue before this Forum. 2nd Opposite party is an authorized dealer of the 3rd opposite party. 2nd opposite party is selling new cars delivered from the 3rd opposite party and conducts a thorough pre-delivery inspection before handing over the vehicles to the buyers. The complainant purchased this car on November 2013 through the 1st opposite party. The car did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The warranty covers only a manufacturing defect found in the vehicle.
The complainant first visited the service center on 7th December 2013 for accessory fitment and not for any service. That time manufacturing defect was not reported. The customer has not visited the service center with complaint of air bag warning lamp blowing. The incidents narrated was never reported to this opposite parties. During 1st service done on 1st February 2014 at 7801 kilometers there was no defect. The 2nd service was done on 29 March 2014 and there was no complaint. But when the vehicle came for service on 23/2/2015 at 26029 kilometers there was complaint of low mileage and sound from the steering. It was rectified by replacing parts. During mileage test there was 21.5 kilometers per litre and the complainant was happy.
The AC of the complainant’s vehicle is working perfect at the last service done on 22/2/2016 with odometer reading of 33360 kilometers. Pickup of the vehicle was good. Regarding body complaint necessary work was done under warranty. The steering complaint was rectified by replacing spare parts on 22/2/2016. The rear left door was replaced. Painting was done as per the complainant’s request under warranty.
Complainant has so far paid charges only for doing periodical services and replacement of the consumptive parts. All other works and replacement of parts are done under warranty. It was not stated that the car is having manufacturing defect. All necessary services were given under warranty period. Complainant is demanding replacement of the vehicle after use for two and a half years. As per the settled law dealer of the vehicle is not liable for any manufacturing defect. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the value of the vehicle along with interest on account of manufacturing defect?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.
4,00,000/-?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- as expenses?
4. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1& Ext.A2 series from the side of the complainant. The Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
5. Points No.1 ,2& 3
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together.
PW1, the complainant in this case purchased a Chevrolet SAIL car as per Ext.A1 invoice on 11/11/2013 from the 2nd opposite party. He purchased the same for self employment and registered the vehicle with taxi permit. According to him the vehicle had seven complaints which are mentioned below.
1. Air bag warning lamp glowing continuously.
2. Sound is coming from the right side while driving.
3. Only 15 kilometers of mileage though the assured
mileage was 23 kilometers.
4. AC is not working properly.
5. Complaints in pickup.
6. Body getting rusted.
7. Power steering became tight.
Though he produced the vehicle before the opposite parties all the complaints were not rectified and hence he filed the complaint to get back the invoice amount along with 10% interest, Rs.4,00,000/- compensation and Rs.5000/- as expenses. Opposite party 1 and 2 filed a joint version contenting that the vehicle was sold during November 2013 with a warranty for 3 years. When it was brought for periodical services all the complaint were rectified. The parts were replaced under warranty. The complaint was filed with false allegations and so it is only to be dismissed. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 series. As per the request of the complainant Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Alappuzha inspected the vehicle and filed Ext.C1 report.
As discussed earlier the case of PW1 is that he purchased a vehicle during November 2013 and vehicle had seven complaints. Though he produced the vehicle before the opposite parties his grievance was not redressed. Hence he has approached this Commission. During cross examination PW1 admitted that at the time of service they had replaced parts and the painting was done under warranty. He was examined on 8/2/2017 and the vehicle had already run about 45000 kilometers. PW1 admitted that spare parts worth Rs. 50,400/- were replaced under full warranty. However he cannot recollect whether he had spent only Rs. 12,438/- during this period of 4 years. The cross examination of PW1 reveals that the complaints were promptly attended by the opposite parties under warranty period and the spare parts were replaced. However Ext.C1 Commission Report of the Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that there was some defects. Air bag warning lamp was glowing continuously. He opined that these defects can be due to the trouble in the electrical circuit or due to the failure of components in the circuit of the air bag warning indication system. It was also noticed that while driving the vehicle on uneven ground conditions and turned to the right hand side a rattling sound was heard. This was due to some loose parts near front right hand side portion of the vehicle.
Paint of the vehicle was found peeled off due to rust formation on the base metal at the floor panel and it was due to poor quality of painting/ workmanship. These are the three defects noticed by the Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector as per Ext.C1 report. Though PW1 had complaint that the vehicle had low mileage when inspected by AMVI it was found having mileage of 20.66 kilometers per litre. Similarly the AC was functioning normally. Pickup performance was found normal and the Power steering performance was normal. So as per Ext.C1 report it is seen that item numbers 1,2&6 are the defects noticed by the AMVI at the time of inspecting the vehicle. It has come out in the evidence that the vehicle was purchased during 2013 and the complaint was filed during 2016(11/8/2016). PW1 was examined before Forum on 8/2/2017. The vehicle had already covered about 45,000 kilometers. So there is no question of directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or giving back the price of the vehicle. Now the only thing which can be done at this situation is to direct the opposite parties to cure the defect since the defects were noticed during warranty period. As stated earlier Ext.C1 report shows that the complaints mentioned as 1,2 and 6 are still there. Since it was dictated during warranty period. Opposite parties are bound to rectify the mistake. Though PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs.50000 as expenses. He admitted that opposite parties had replace spare parts worth Rs. 50,400/-. He had no case that his complaints during the time of service were not attended. It was promptly attended and still three defects which are pointed out earlier could not be rectified. Since the opposite parties had promptly attended the compliant of PW1 there is no question of granting any expense. Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant can be redressed by directing the opposite parties to cure the defects pointed out in Ext.C1 report (1,2 and6). These points are found accordingly.
6. Points No.4
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
1) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to cure defects
No.1,2 and 6 pointed out in Ext.C1 report within one
month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
2) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.
3000/- as cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of July, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Omprakash(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Invoice dtd.. 11/11/2013
Ext.A2series - Credit invoices
Ext.C1 - Commission Report.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
