Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

82/2012

P.Vijaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indus Motor Co(P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.N.Maheshwari

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                      Date of Filing  : 28.03.2012

                                                                   Date of Order : 06.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

             

C.C. NO.82/2012

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

Mrs. P. Vijaya,

No.60, Valluvarkottam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.                                                                 .. Complainant

..Versus..

1. The Manager,

INDUS MOTOR CO. (P) LTD.,

Gulam Square,

No.46 to 49, Royapettah High Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. The Manager,

INDUS MOTOR CO. (P) LTD.,

No.203 to 206, Mount Poonamallee Road,

Kattupakkam,

Chennai – 600 056.                                                .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. N. Maheswaraiah & others

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. K.R. Ramesh Kumar     

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to replace the Maruthi Swift (VDI) car bearing chassis No.678096 and Engine No.1584468 with Registration No.TN 01AP 2921 with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a Maruthi Swift (VDI) car from the 1^st opposite party.  On 16.09.2011, when the car was driven, the rain water entered into the car caused damages to the cushion, Mat, interiors resulting that the car was stopped without running.   Thereafter, the car was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for due service and was duly performed the repair works and handed over to the complainant on 24.09.2011.   The complainant submits that on 29.09.2011 once again, the same problem of water entering into the car caused repair.  The 2^nd opposite party after due repair returned the car on 03.10.2011. The complainant submits that on 25.10.2011, once again, the rain water entered into the car and the car was stopped and was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for due repair and check up and the complainant sent a telegram.   The opposite party issued letter dated:14.11.2011 and he was assured that if there is any manufacturing defect it will be rectified as per MSIL norms on free of cost basis and admitted in the said letter that the water entry problem is due to the manufacturing fault.  The complainant submits that in the letter dated:24.11.2011, the opposite parties informed that the vehicle shall not be plied more than 13” water which amounts to manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:16.01.2012 and the opposite parties acknowledged the same and has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony and hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties state that the claim of replacement of vehicle never arise in this case because the complainant has not proved none of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  On 16.09.2011, the complainant handed over the vehicle for repair on the complaint that the rain water came inside the car through chassis.  The vehicle was attended by the opposite parties and after repair the same was handed over to the complainant.  Again on 29.09.2011 and 25.10.2011, the vehicle was handed over for the very same complaint.  After repair, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant.  It was specifically informed to the complainant that the vehicle shall not be driven more than 13” water level which is not permissible and not safe to drive, if driven there is higher possibility of water can seep through.  So there is no design flaw / quality lapse exist in the said vehicle.  The repairs caused to the vehicle due to the entry of water shall not be treated as manufacturing defect.  The opposite parties state that the repair is due to the entry of rain water which was duly rectified then and there is not a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of Maruthi Swift (VDI) car bearing Registration No.TN 01 AP 2921, chassis No.678096 and  Engine No.1584468 as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      0n point:-

Both parties has not preferred to file any written arguments and not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  Perused the documents namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded specifically that he purchased a Maruthi Swift (VDI) car from the 1^st opposite party as per invoice, Ex.A1. The Certificate of Warranty of the complainant’s car is marked as per Ex.A2.  On 16.09.2011, when the car was driven, the rain water entered into the car caused damages to the cushion, Mat, interiors resulting that the car was stopped without running. Ex.A4 is the photograph.  Thereafter, the car was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for service and was duly performed the repair works and handed over to the complainant on 24.09.2011.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 29.09.2011 once again, the same problem of water entering into the car caused repair.  The 2^nd opposite party after due repair returned the car on 03.10.2011.   Further the complainant contended that on 25.10.2011, once again, the rain water entered into the car and the car was stopped and was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for due repair and check up and sent a complaint through telegram as per Ex.A3.  The opposite party issued letter, Ex.A6 in which, it is stated that “As discussed with you we will inspect the vehicle and if there is any manufacturing defect it will rectified as per MSIL norms on Free of Cost basis”  proves that the vehicle was repaired and rectified and handed over to the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainant is that as per Ex.A7, letter the opposite parties informed that the vehicle shall not be plied more than 13” water which amounts to manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:16.01.2012 as per Ex.A8 and filed this case for replacement and compensation.   But the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer and has not taken suitable steps to file any expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the claim of replacement of vehicle never arise in this case because the complainant has not proved none of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Every time, the complainant drove the vehicle in water more than 13” caused damage was duly rectified then and there within the period of warranty.   The repairs caused to the vehicle due to the entry of water shall not be treated as manufacturing defect.  There is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties 1 & 2.   In this case, it is pleaded and proved by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the complainant has not taken any steps to implead the manufacturer while claiming replacement. Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle also.  The repair is due to the entry of rain water was duly rectified then and there and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of December 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	29.03.2011	Copy of Invoice
Ex.A2		Copy of Certificate of Warranty
Ex.A3	25.10.2011	Copy of telegram sent by the complainant
Ex.A4		Copy of photographs
Ex.A5	03.11.2011	Copy of letter sent by the 2nd opposite party’s Works Manager
Ex.A6	14.11.2011	Copy of letter sent by the 2nd opposite party’s Works Manager
Ex.A7	24.11.2011	Copy of letter sent by the 2nd opposite party’s Works Manager
Ex.A8	16.01.2012	Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant
Ex.A9		Copy of acknowledgement cards

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT