IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the  18^th      Day of  January 2022

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

       Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.184/16

Sivan Pillai                                                           :         Complainant

Ummini Mandiram

Vettuthura, Neendakara P.O

Karunagappally, Kollam.

[By Adv.V.Vinayachandran]

V/s

1. ICML International Cars and Motors Ltd.    :         Opposite parties

         Hoshiarpur-146022, Punjab, India.

         (Manufacturer of Extreme D1 6+1 seater

          Bharat Stage III WIT).

          [By Adv.Jyothisagar.V]

2. Ajith

          Proprietor

         Daiwik Motors Pvt.Ltd.

         Tvm road, Pulamon, Kottarakkara.

       [Authorised Dealer for ICML Range of Products)

        [By Adv.S.Riyas]

FINAL   ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant purchased a car bearing Registration No.KL 23 H 2874 from the 2^nd opposite party, authorized dealer of ICML range of products with the description Extreme DI(6+1)BS III for taxi service from which the complainant earns his livelihood.   The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the above said car.  The complainant purchased the said car from the 2^nd opposite party by availing a loan of Rs.8,16,000/- as per retain invoice dated 03.09.2013 from the Bank of India, Kollam branch and also paying Rs.1,44,268/- as down payment on 07.09.2013.  The complainant has also insured the vehicle got registered it and obtained taxi permit.

          It is further alleged that vide publicity was given by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party in all leading news papers and on visual medias about the vehicle and assured the customers prompt after sale service and due availability of spare parts.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle the 2^nd opposite party was having a showroom at Sakthikulangara with full fledged modern facilities for service and repairs of vehicle.  Later it was closed almost all the outlets and workshops of  the opposite parties are closed so that no after sale service is available at present.  From the early days of delivery of the vehicle there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the dealings of the opposite parties.  They have issued different invoices with different price for the same vehicle to the customers and to the financial institutions.  There are wide range of malpractice seen in the dealings with the opposite parties.  From the 3^rd month of delivery of vehicle, the vehicle showed mechanical problem and the opposite parties have not offered proper service to the vehicle.  Practically the office of the opposite parties and service centers were closed, spare parts are also not available.  There is extended warranty for 3 years and 1,50,000 kms assured to the customers with full coverage of replacement of spare parts as assured by the opposite parties.  The vehicle was insured with bumper to bumper coverage.  But the vehicle met with an accident after 6 months of delivery the complainant could not get it repaired with the 2^nd opposite party as the workshop /service centre was closed.  However the 2^nd opposite party arranged the repair of the vehicle with another workshop.  But the same was repaired by unqualified technicians which was not satisfactory to the complainant.  Moreover they have charged Rs.14,500/- as service charge in addition to full insurance amount.  The vehicle is completely spoiled by the so called repair by unqualified technician. 

          Now for the last 6 months  the vehicle is kept idle in the compound of the complainant as  he could not operate the vehicle for want of proper service by the opposite party.  Moreover the vehicle is not keeping the pollution standard prescribed by Government as there is high emission of carbon monoxide.  In the circumstances the complainant cannot operate service with the same vehicle as there is no service centre in the State  of Kerala.  As the complainant could not ply the vehicle  he could not pay the EMI for the loan availed and the same was overdue.  Though the complainant informed the bank about the state of affairs the bank is taking hasty steps to recover the loan amount with interest.  The complainant has lost his reputation as a taxi driver who has got a service of 20 years in the industry.  As the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition he could not operate the service and lost his service and thereby sustained mental agony which could not be assessed in terms of money.  The above  of the opposite party No.1&2 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The very same state of affairs is experienced by all the customers and some of them went to the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petition (W.P(C) No.6168/2018(U) in which the Public Prosecutor  submitted before that Court Kerala Police has registered Crime No.375/2016 has been registered against the opposite parties and the same is under investigation.  The complainant has not received subsidy available for taxi drivers and the same is said to be received by opposite parties.  Due to the above act of the opposite parties the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.9,57,268/- and the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss sustained to the complainant.  Though the complainant approached the opposite parties several times the grievance of the complainant could not be redressed.  Hence the complaint.

          Opposite party No.1&2 resisted the complaint by filing separate written version raising more or less same contentions which in short are as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and therefore the complaint is to be dismissed in-limini.  The complaint is inherently vague and false.  No details of description or details of so called defects in the vehicle have been averred.

          However both the opposite parties would admit that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the car and the complainant has purchased the car from the 2^nd opposite party by availing loan from the bank.  The opposite parties would deny the allegation that no after sale service is available in the vehicle in Kerala and all work shop of the opposite parties were closed.  The opposite parties have provided all the best services to its customers.  All the complaint raised in respect of the vehicle of the complainant has been promptly and properly attended by the opposite parties.

          It is further contented that the 1^st opposite party is having standardized technique and quality control system  of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.  After proper testing and quality check by the Government authorized agency the vehicle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party has send to the dealers for sale.  The opposite parties No.1&2 further denied the allegation of any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and alleged against them by the complainant.  The complaint of the complainant that the vehicle showed mechanical problem and he did not get any proper service from the opposite parties is denied.  No such problem what so ever is reported to the opposite parties.  The opposite party No.1&2 stoutly denied the allegation that there is no authorized service centre in Kerala.  The 1^st opposite party had fully equipped workshop  having fully trained service advisors, mechanics and helpers.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1&2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get various reliefs sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of  the oral evidence of PW1, Ext.A1 to A10 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1&Ext.B1, B2, Ext.D2 to D5 documents.  The AMVI and Advocate Commissioner has also been examined as CW1&CW2 and got marked as Ext.C1&C2 documents.  The opposite party No.1&2 have filed notes of argument.  Though sufficient opportunity was granted, the learned counsel for the complainant has neither filed any notes of argument nor advanced any oral argument.  Heard the counsel for opposite party No.1&2.

Point No.1&2

          For avoiding repetition of discussion of  materials these 2 points are considered together.  Following are the admitted facts in this case.  The complainant had purchased Extreme DI(6+1)BS III seater vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer on 13.09.2013 by paying Rs.9,10,000/- as per Ext.A4 invoice.  The registration number of the vehicle is KL 23 H 2874.  The vehicle is having a standard warranty for a period of 2 years for 100000kms whichever is earlier from the date of delivery.  The manufacturer of the said vehicle has also offered optional extended warranty for one more year or up to 50000kms whichever is earlier for payment of nominal amount within a period of 6 months from the date of sale.  The complainant has seen availed any extended warranty offers.  It is also an admitted fact that the 1^st opposite party had stopped production of their vehicle in the year 2015.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party had not issued spare parts to their service centers. 

          According to the complainant for the last 6 months of the  date of filing the complaint the vehicle was kept idle in the complainant’s compound as he could not operate the vehicle for want of service by the opposite parties.  There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party by availing the loan of  Rs.8,10,000/- from the Bank of India, Kollam Branch..  According to the complainant as the vehicle has not been plying he is unable to pay the monthly installment due to the bank and as no proper service is  available he could not get the vehicle repaired and ply it.

          According to the 2^nd opposite party though the 1^st opposite party had stopped production of their vehicle in the year 2015 and not supplied necessary spare parts for the service centers the 2^nd opposite party continued in giving service inspite of heavy loss till 2018 and that the 2^nd opposite party stopped their service station only during the year 2018 that too after intimating to the 1^st opposite party.  However the complainant had not approached the 2^nd opposite party for service from the year 2016 onwards.  It is the further contention of the 2^nd opposite party that they have been conducting service station only at Kottarakkara.    It is also an undisputed fact that on the basis of  application filed on behalf of the complainant  this Commission has appointed an expert AMVI and advocate commissioner for inspection of the vehicle.  They inspected the vehicle on 22.06.2018 in a workshop at Chavara where the vehicle was kept and filed Ext.C1&C2 reports.  At the time of the inspection of the said vehicle the odometer reading has been recorded as 141000 km.  The complainant is seen filed on 16.07.2016.

          In view of the available materials discussed above it is clear that the vehicle has run about 2 and half years  and the warranty period of the vehicle was also over if viewed in both angle.  As 2 years period already over and it has also covered 100000kms within a period of 2 years.  Therefore the vehicle is out of warranty when the alleged complaint is made.  It is also brought out in evidence that the 2^nd opposite party has been running he workshop till 2018.  Even though the 1^st opposite party manufacturer has stopped the production of vehicle during the year 2015.  Therefore the complainant is expected to carry out the repair work after the warranty period by paying its charge from any work shop he intends to carry out repair and maintenance work.  It is further to be pointed out that the report of the expert would not indicate that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect.  It is further to be pointed out that the complainant has not made any specific allegation regarding the performance of the vehicle whenever the vehicle was produced at the 2^nd opposite party service station for carrying out the service work.  It is also brought out in evidence that  whatever complaints reported were promptly attended to the fully satisfaction of the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is clear from the available materials that even now the complainant is using the vehicle and used to produce before the RTO authorities who after verifying the fitness of  the vehicle issued fitness certificate stating that the vehicle is road worthy and free from any defect.  Ext.D5 is the latest fitness certificate obtained from the complainant which is having validity till 13.09.2022.  In view of the above materials on record it is crystal clear that the vehicle is being continuously used by the complainant from the date of purchase till date,  even though  he kept the vehicle for idle for a few days at the workshop at Chavara before inspecting the expert and commissioner so as to make it appears that the vehicle is not in a running condition.  It is to be pointed out according to CW1 AMVI the battery of the vehicle was found missing at the time of inspection.  According to CW1 lack of fuel for the vehicle, defect in the starter, getting blocked the injector etc. are very much as the vehicle was kept idle for a pretty long period.  Hence he could not start the vehicle during his inspection.  It is further to be pointed out that there is no reliable materials to indicate that the complainant has not approached the 2^nd opposite party alleging any major defect from the year 2016 onwards and the 2^nd opposite party neither closed the workshop nor denied the service or repair work whenever the complainant  approached the 2^nd opposite party. 

          In view of the materials discussed above there is nothing on record to indicate that there  is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1&2.  In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.  The points answered accordingly.

Point No.3

          In the result the complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the   18^th  day of  January  2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

           S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

          Stanly Harold:Sd/-

         Forwarded/by Order

        Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1           :      Sivan Pillai

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext A1        :    Receipt dated 03.04.18. 

Ext.A2        :     True copy of receipt dated 07.09.2013.

Ext.A3        :     True copy of quotation.

Ext.A4        :     True copy of retail invoice dated 13.09.13.

Ext  A5       :     True copy of certificate of registration.

Ext.A6        :     True copy of contract carriage permit.

Ext.A7        :     Lok adalath order.

Ext.A8        :     True copy of High court judgment.

Ext.A9        :     Owner’s manual.

Ext.A10      :     Advertisement (Daiwik Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1           :   Deepak

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.B1        :    Copy of registration details of the vehicle.

Ext.B2 series:   Photographs.

Ext.D2        :   Authorisation letter

Ext.D3        :   Copy of registration details.

Ext.D4        :   Copy of vehicles details showing in registering authority.

Ext.D5        :   m Parivahan copy of vehicle details

CW1           :         Rajesh

CW2           :         Robinson

Ext.C1        :         Report filed by the expert.

Ext.C2        :         Commission report filed by commissioner.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

           S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

          Stanly Harold:Sd/-

         Forwarded/by Order

        Senior Superintendent