By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. The say of the complainant is that he purchased Maruthi ALTO car on 22-9-06 in the name of his wife from opposite party. On the date of purchase itself while driving the vehicle he noticed unusual sound from the engine. The next day he approached opposite party and brought it to their notice. Opposite party failed to rectify the defect for almost three months for one reason or the other. Later he took the vehicle to another dealer INDUS Motors on 28-01-07 who solved the problem of the vehicle free of cost. Complainant who had purchased a new vehicle spending Rs.Three lakhs was denied the pleasure of the use of a new vehicle due to deficiency of service of opposite party. Complainant suffered much mental pain and hardships. He had to make several complaints to different authorities to have his vehicle repaired, even though the defect was such that opposite party could rectify within the warranty period itself. The statement made by opposite party complainant's driving is not proper, and that he should refer the manual for proper driving etc. caused much mental anguish to complainant. That complainant has been driving vehicles for almost 15 years. Complainant is aggrieved by the irresponsible attitude of opposite party in not rectifying the defect of the vehicle and rendering proper service even during warranty period. He claim Rs.one lakh as compensation.<br /> 2. Version was filed by opposite party denying the allegations in the complaint. The defect of unusual sound from the car is specifically denied. It is submitted that on thorough investigation and studies with utmost care opposite party could detect that difference in sound was due to unusual thrust ply, where of the probable reason could be undesirable manner of driving in violation of the manner prescribed by the manufacturer as per the manual. That complainant was reluctant to co-operate with opposite party in rectifying the trouble of the vehicle. Complaint is vexatious and liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A21 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on behalf of opposite party.<br /> 4. The undisputed facts of this case are that complainant purchased a Maruthi ALTO Car from opposite party on 22-9-06 and approached opposite party with complaint of unusual sound from the engine during the warranty period itself. Exts.A1 to A17 and Ext.A21 are communications between complainant and opposite party regarding the defect of unusual noise from the front of the car. The letters are mostly by e-mail. These documents reveal that after taking delivery of the vehicle within a few hours complainant noticed the trouble of unusual sound from the engine. It is also seen that complainant has taken the vehicle to opposite party the next day itself. Opposite party could not find out the cause of the sound and had given evasive reply that it is a common problem to all ALTO cars. Since the defect persisted complainant did approach opposite party several times. As per Ext.A1, on one such occasion opposite party advised complainant that the noise is due to backlash in the gear box. It was submitted by complainant that he was very much shocked to hear that the gear box of his new vehicle was faulty. Ext.A2 to A8 are letters between the parties which makes it clear that complainant was desperate on hearing that the defect was with respect to the gear box of the new vehicle. Complainant lost confidence in opposite party and was unwilling to handover the vehicle for repair of gear box. In Ext.A5 and A7 complainant for this reason has taken the stand of claiming replacement of the vehicle, because opposite party sold to him a gear box faulty vehicle. Later on 17-10-2006 on insistance by Territory Service Manager Sri.Tapas Chakrabarty complainant handed over the vehicle for inspection to opposite party. Ext.A12 is the letter by Territory Manager to complainant regarding the inspection report. The relevant portion of Ext.A12 dated, 18-10-2006 reads as under:-<br /> “Thanks for your co-operation. I have received the technical <br /> inspection report from M/s A.M.Motors, Malappuram. No abnormality found in the vehicle except the thrust play which<br /> was a very little on higher side. To cross check for the root <br /> cause I instructed them to adjust it. Presently it is perfectly OK.” <br /> On the same day complainant has replied by e-mail which is Ext.A13. The relevant portion reads as under.<br /> “Now you see that after adjusting the so called thrust play/back-<br /> lash the unusual noise of my car which was the root cause of my complaint and problems considerably increased @ 60% from the existing level.”<br /> Thus Ext.A12 and A13 prove that the defect of the vehicle alleged by complainant persisted even after inspection and repair by opposite party. But according to opposite party the vehicle was perfectly OK. Ext.A15 is the letter which shows that after receiving Ext.A13 reply opposite party has again inspected the vehicle on 24-10-2006 at the premises of the complainant, and opposite party again reported the vehicle to be ins satisfactory condition. On 27-10-06 complainant took his car for a free check up offered by another Maruthi dealer, ie., INDUS Motors, Kottakkal. The defect was easily traced out to be pertaining to the clutch of the vehicle. It was rectified free of cost the next day itself. Ext.A18 is the cash memo dated, 28-01-07 which shows that clutch set was repaired. According to complainant after repair by INDUS Motors the vehicle was fully satisfactory. Complainant who appeared in person argued that opposite party conducted inspection and repair of the vehicle in a negligent manner and opposite party was deficient in providing proper service even during the warranty period. Ext.B1 is the copy of warranty. In the version as well as in the evidence tendered through affidavit opposite party has put forward a blanket denial of the defect alleged to the vehicle by complainant. Instead of admitting the defect and default committed, opposite party has taken an approach of disputing the grievance and blaming the complainant that he does not know proper driving. A consumer would be highly dissatisfied when a brand new car gives trouble within a few hours of it's purchase. The attitude of opposite party is fully clear in Ext.A17. Instead of regretting and acknowledging the mistake of not being able to help the consumer. Opposite party has taken the stand that the premature failure of clutch disc could have resulted from incorrect driving. This is to be considered along with the fact that complainant had noticed trouble of unusual noise within few hours of purchase itself. Complainant who had been insisting for replacement of the vehicle has been fair enough to admit in Ext.A16 that after repair by INDUS Motors his vehicle is perfectly okay. Complainant has put forward a consistent case which is established and proved by reliable evidence. We have no dispute in holding that opposite party has been deficient in service. Complainant has claimed Rs.One lakh as compensation which according to us is exaggerated and inflated. The defect may not be a major one but the consumer losses satisfaction of having a new car. Big companies like opposite party herein instead of disputing the undisputed facts should attempt at resolving the matter at the earliest. In our view an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation would serve justice to the complainant.<br /> 5. In the result, complaint allowed. We order opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of this order.<br /> Dated this 23rd day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A21<br /> Ext.A1(a) : Letter dated, 09-10-06 by complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.A1(b) : Reply e-mail dated, 11-10-06 by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : E-mail dated, 10-10-06 by complainant to Mr.Rajendran,<br /> GM Sales, AM Motors.<br /> Ext.A3 : E-mail dated, 11-10-06 by complainant to Maruthi Website.<br /> Ext.A4 : Reply dated, 12-10-06 from Maruthi Customer Care<br /> to complainant<br /> Ext.A5 : Letter dated, 13-10-06 by complainant to Tapas.<br /> Ext.A6 : Reply dated, 13-10-06 by Tapas to complainant.<br /> Ext.A7 : Letter dated, 15-10-06 by complainant to Tapas.<br /> Ext.A8 : Reply dated, 16-10-06 by Tapas to complainant.<br /> Ext.A9 : Letter dated, 17-10-06 by complainant to Tapas.<br /> Ext.A10 : Letter dated, 17-10-06 by complainant to Mr.Anand,<br /> A.M. Motors.<br /> Ext.A1 1 : Letter dated, 17-10-06 from Tapas to complainant.<br /> Ext.A1 2 : Letter dated, 18-10-06 from Tapas to complainant.<br /> Ext.A1 3 : Letter dated, 18-10-06 by complainant to Tapas.<br /> Ext.A1 4 : Letter dated, 27-10-06 from complainant to Mr. Anand,<br /> A.M. Motors.<br /> Ext.A1 5 : Reply dated, 28-10-06 by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A1 6 : Letter dated, 14-03-07 by complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.A1 7 : Reply dated, 27-03-07 by opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A1 8 : Photo copy of the Cash Memo of Indus Motors <br /> dated, 28-01-07 .<br /> Ext.A1 9 : Photo copy of the Invoice of opposite party dated,<br /> 14-02-2000.<br /> Ext.A20 : Photo copy of the delivery receipt of opposite party <br /> dated, 22-9-2006.<br /> <br /> <br /> Ext.A21 : Letter dated, nil by complainant to opposite party.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Warranty Policy.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />