Kerala

Idukki

CC/17/2021

K Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Horizon Motors - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 02/02/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 14^th day of November 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.17/2021

Between

Complainant                                     :  Sri.K.Radhakrishnan IPS, 

                                                            Commandant, KAP 5^th Dhalam,

                                                             Kuttikkanam.

                                                              And

Opposite Party                                   : Horizon Motors India Pvt Ltd.,  

                                                             Thellakom P.O., Kottayam.

                                                             (By Adv.B.Ashok & Adv.Ajay Kumar K.G.)    

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant is an IPS Commandant in KAP Battalion Department.  On 31/10/2020, KAP Battalion Department vehicle Mahindra Marazzo 2019 Model bearing Registration No.KL- 01 C N 2990 was brought to authorised service centre of Mahindra at Kottayam due to damage of brake and after examination of the vehicle, they have found that there is a complaint of Rotor disk and it was replaced with free of cost since it was during the warranty period.  But service adviser in this centre has informed that because it is a new rotor disk fitted in this vehicle, even though there is no complaint in break pad, it has to replaced also.  Otherwise it would cause rotor disk complaint again despite being the vehicle within warranty period, they were not ready to replace the break pad of the vehicle with free of cost for replacing the break pad, complainant was charged Rs.2850/-.

 

2 . Normally, capacity of Rotor disk in 60,000 Km and break pad in 2000Km is available in the vehicle of this said series.   But, when  the  vehicle  ran  only  in

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

9661Km, Rotor disk and brake pad had to be replaced due to the damage of rotor disk only.  This happened due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The first service of this vehicle was done in 1000 Km on 04/05/2020 and second service was done in 10,000/- Km on 31/10/2020 with proper time at the service centre.

3 . Opposite party had charged Rs. 2850/- for replacing the break pad was in the working condition.  This is violation of consumer right.  Therefore, Commission may be received, legal proceedings may be initiated to get justice against the acts of opposite party.

Complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

a . Opposite party may be directed to refund Rs.2850/- which incurred the cost for replacing the rotor disk and break pad.

b . Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

Upon notice from this Commission, opposite party has entered appearance before this Commission and filed written version.  Their contentions are discussed as follows.

Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  All the allegations and averments contained in the complaint are denied except those which are specifically admitted hereunder.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act.  Moreover complainant has no locus standi to file such a petition against opposite party because he is not duly authorised by the owner of the vehicle.

It is true that the vehicle No.Kl 01 CN 2990 has been brought to the work shop on 31/10/2020 due to the rotor disk complaint.  On examination, it is revealed that such complaint was a result of misuse and habits of the customer due to hard braking.  Normally rotor disk and break pad is not provided with the warranty cover since both components are subject to normal wear and tear due to the rough use.  It is admitted that the vehicle is using in the high range area and hard braking will  result  in  the  above  complaint.   Since  the  vehicle  is  used  by  the  police

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

department, opposite party replaced the rotor disk  free of cost which is not covered under the manufacturer warranty under company goodwill.  The special advantage given to the customer under the company goodwill is only to enhance the customer satisfaction.  We have replaced the rotor disk not under warranty but under good will such an advantage cannot be given to the brake pad since the said brake pad will not cover under any warranty.  This has been conveyed to the complainant while they were given the warranty under good will to the rotor disk.  The brake pads are unable to include in any of the free of cost criteria as it is a normal wear and tear part.  Normally there is no need to change the old brake pads but for better smooth braking, opposite party advised to replace the brake pad and informed complainant that opposite party is unable to give the said part free of cost.  This has been accepted by the complainant and on the said assurance the brake pad has been changed upon payment of requisite charges.

It is submitted that the rotor disk itself is not warrantable and this was replaced free of cost only on the ground that the vehicle is used by the state and such a privilege has been given only under good will of the company.  The claim that since one of the items which is subject to normal wear and tear was replaced the other component that is the brake pad is also liable to be given as free of cost is an untenable contention which cannot be entertained.  Such act will not come under the deficiency in service or negligence service as defined in the act.  The complainant may directed to produce the relevant warranty card or coverage given by the manufacturer before considering the petition on merit.  More over the defect in the rotor disk is normally caused due to the disk.  In such circumstances alone, the grew on the rotor disk will result in scratches to the brake pad also.  In such circumstances it is advised that for smooth braking both are to be replaced at the same time.  In the case on hand the rotor disk was replaced not under warranty but under company good will.  It is therefore submitted that the claim against to the opposite party is not legally sustainable and liable to be rejected.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

Moreover there is a specific averment in the complaint that the alleged complaint has occurred due to manufacturing defect if so the complaint is barred for non-jointer of the necessary parties and the opposite party which is the service centre is not liable for nay manufacturing defect.

After filing written version, case was posted for evidence.  But complainant  and opposite party were absent and not represented by counsel.  Hence documents produced along with complaint were marked as Exts.P1 to P3 respectively.  Opposite party also has not filed proof affidavit and documents.  Hence evidence closed and the case was taken for orders.  Now the points which arise for consideration are

1.  Whether complainant has locus standi to file the complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3.  If so, what is the reliefs entitled to complainant?

 

Point No.1 is considered

 

We have perused the complaint and documents which were marked on the side of complainant.  Complainant has not adduced oral evidence, opposite party also has not adduced oral evidence.  No documents were filed by opposite party.  Both parties have not filed argument notes.  According to complainant allegation against opposite party is about the defect of his department vehicle.  But complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he is the lawful custodian of the alleged vehicle.  Moreover, no document  produced by complainant to show that he is the authority to file this complaint for resolving the defects of the alleged vehicle.  Also complainant has not stated in the complaint itself that he is having locus standi to file this complaint.  In Ext.P1 document, we have seen that the billing was in the name of the State Police Chief and the address was “District Police Office, Palakkad, Kerala”.  No evidence was adduced to prove that vehicle had manufacturing or other defect or that there was deficiency in service.

(Cont.....5)

-5-

We are also of the view that complainant has not proved that he has authority to file the complaint.  As per Ext.P1, it is seen that owner of the vehicle is “The State Police Chief”.  There is no document before this Commission to show that complainant was authorized to file the complaint for and on behalf of “The State Police Chief”. Point No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

Point No.3

Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief prayed for in complaint.

In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs.

       Pronounced by this Commission on this the  14^th day of November, 2022.

 

                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                  SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER                                                                   

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                      SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                           SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                           

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Horizon Motors India Pvt Ltd., Ro Bill – Tax Invoice dated 31/10/2020

Ext.P2 - Repair note from Horizon Motors India Pvt Ltd.,

               Tellakom dated 31/10/2020

Ext.P3 - Periodical Service Details of KL 01 CN 2990 Mahindra Marazzo

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

                                               

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order

 

 

                                                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR