BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 3^rd day of March 2017

Filed on : 18-12-2013

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.872/2013

Between

Natarajan R., : Complainant

S/o. Raman, (By Adv. Biju T.S., Faizel Chambers,

Prasantha Nilayam, Pulleppady Cross road,

Chennithala, Cochin-682 018)

Mavelikkara-690 105.

And

1. The General Manager, : Opposite parties

M/s. Fiat @ Group Automobile (1^st o.p. By Adv. Sunil C.G.

India Pvt. Ltd., Benefice, M/s. S.G. Chancery Chambers,

3^rd floor, Mathuradas Mill, 64/3147 Kalabhavan road, Kochi-18)

Compound Lower Parel (W)

Mumbai – 400 013.

2. The General Manager, (2^nd o.p. By Anil S. Raj, Panthiyil,

M/s. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd., Warriam Road, Kochi-682 016)

Skyline Gateway Apartments,

Pathadipalam, Edappally,

Kochi- 682 033.

3. The General Manager, (3^rd o.p. By adv. V. Krishna Menon,

M/s. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Menon & Menon, Kumaran Arcade,

Authorised workshop of Tata 1^st Floor, Power House road,

Motors Fiat, Nettoor, Kochi-682 018)

Maradu Panchayath,

Cochin, Ernakulam (D)

Kerala-682 040.

4. Hyson Auto Sales (P) Ltd., (4^th O.P. By Adv. Sanil Kunjachan,

33/6 C, C1, C2, C3, “Srivathsa” 61/335, Judges

Pavoor road, Padivattom , Avenue, Kaloor, Kochi-17)

Cochin -682 024.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

2. The complainant had purchased a Grande Punto car from the 2^nd opposite party on payment of Rs. 5,81,441/- on 15-03-2011 and the vehicle was delivered to him on 28-03-2011. From the beginning the vehicle had some wheel alignment problem and that was informed at the time of the 1^st service. But the problem continued even after the service. During the 2^nd service on 24-02-2012 the very same complaint was raised, but it was not properly taken care by the service centre. On 13-10-2012 the complainant had sent an e-mail communication to the authorized dealer airing the complaint, however, there was no response. Consequent to the bad alignment, two tyres of the car became defective and damaged. It was to be replaced on 18-09-2012 when the car had run only 18,000 kms. The complainant therefore approached the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service centre of the manufacturer on 19-10-2012. But they were also helpless in getting the defects cured when the car had run about 25,000 kmts. The other two tires were also had to be replaced. The complainant issued a legal notice on 11-03-2013 against the opposite parties alleging manufacturing defects. In the reply notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party it was admitted that on 24-02-2012 when the vehicle had run only 12,887 kms., the complainant had informed the wheel alignment problem to the 2^nd opposite party. The other opposite parties did not respond to the legal notice. When the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party, who is also an authorized service centre they also were not able to rectify the defects and they alleged that the defect was due to the manufacturing problem and it could be solved only by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is deeply aggrieved by the action of the opposite party, the 1^st opposite party/manufacturer is liable to replace the vehicle or reimburse Rs. 6,68,259/-, the purchase value of the vehicle. The complainant also prays that the opposite parties are made liable to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties they appeared and contested the matter contending that there was neither manufacturing defects nor was there any deficiency in service.

4. When the matter came up for evidence, the complainant did not appear to give evidence. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit of opposite parties 2 and 3 were filed and Ext. B1 document was marked. Defense witness examined by the opposite parties were not cross-examined for want of presence of the complainant and his counsel. Exbt. C1 commission report was also marked in this case. Heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties, perused affidavit and other relevant records.

5. Following issues were settled for consideration

i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any manufacturing defects for the vehicle purchased by him?

ii. Is the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for?

iii. Reliefs and costs.

6. Issue No. i. We have gone through the commission report of the expert commissioner, which is marked in this case as Exbt. C1. The commissioner was the Motor Vehicle Inspector attached to the Regional Transport office, Ernakulam. The commissioner after making a through inspection of the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and the opposite parties' representative had reported that the vehicle was registered as KL 31-C-4365, the subject matter of the vehicle herein was inspected by him in detail at the workshop of the 4^th opposite party. The commissioner had also inspected the service record of the vehicle kept with the opposite party . He had driven the vehicle for test driving and assessed that it was stable. He found the stability, cornering, road holding, drivability etc. were found satisfactory. He attributed the wear and rear of the tyre to the driving habit of the driver. According to the commissioner quick acceleration, speed on turns, non-maintenance in proper time, tyre inflation, pressure and frequent checking of wheel alignment are some of the factors which would affect the wear and rear of the tyre. In the light of the facts described and noted expert commissioner was of the opinion that it is illogical to consider the wear and rear reported in this vehicle was abnormal. He was also categorically stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant had complained of the wheel alignment problem for the first time only during the second service of the vehicle. If the road frequently used by the complainant for driving the vehicle is not smooth and if it is irregular it is likely that the wheel alignment may get misaligned in short frequent. It is admitted case of the complainant, had used the vehicle for more than 25,000 km within a span of 2 years. The wear and rear of the tyre can not therefore be attributed to any manufacturing defect. The report of the expert commissioner is clear and categorical to the extend that there was no manufacturing defect and the vehicle was running smoothly in all response during the test drive taken out by him. In the above circumstances, we find that the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that there was manufacturing defect for the vehicle have not been proved. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.

7. Issue No. iii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant we find that the complainant does not deserve any compensation as prayed for. Holding issue No. 2 against the complainant we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, we do not propose to award any costs.

8.Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of March 2017.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Job slip dt. 19-10-2019

A2 : Job card/workshop copy

A3 : Copy of cash bill dt. 18-09-2012

A4 : Copy of estimate dt. 18-08-2012

A5 : Copy of bill dt. 03-07-2014

A6 : Copy of bill dt. 03-07-2014

A6(1) : Copy of vehicle alignment

report dt. 27-09-2014

A6(2) : Copy of alignment

C1 : Commission report

Opposite party's Exhibits:

Exbt. B1 : Service history

Depositions

DW1 : Ramesh C. Menon

DW2 : Rajesh R.

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By hand: