Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties. 

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The petitioners are husband and wife. The 1^st petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-01 AS 1647 by paying Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party.  The petitioners have availed a scheme named ‘Indus Service Package’ on 05.09.2013.  It is contended that as per the terms of this package the petitioners are entitled to get free repair against all the periodical maintenance service for 3 years from the date of package.  As per the above stated agreement, after the repairing of the vehicle it is noted an abnormal sound was coming from the front side of the vehicle and also the vehicle was pulled to the left side.  In order to rectify this defect the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party but it was revealed that all the defects were in existence.  According to him during the span of 15 months the petitioners entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party at least for 10 times but the opposite party failed to rectify the above defects. Due to the side pulling of the vehicle the tyre of the vehicle speedily damaged hence the complainants changed all the wheels by new one.  It is contended that the petitioners purchased certain spare parts which also caused Rs.3,000/- to the complainants.  As a result of change of new 6 tyres he spent Rs.11,750/- that also happened due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party.  The opposite party’s above said act caused much mental agony, sufferings and financial loss to the petitioners, hence the petitioner filed this case for rectifying the defect and for giving proper direction to the opposite party for the proper service of the vehicle etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issue notice to the opposite party.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite party, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that the complainant had availed an Indus Service Package (ISP) on 05.09.2013.  It is stated that the customer is entitled for free labour works only during the periodical maintenance service for 3 years but he has to pay for the spare parts, Oil, Greeze etc.  It is further stated that the allegation of sound coming from the front side of the vehicle and the vehicle was pulled to left side are also false.  These facts are not informed to the opposite party.  It is also stated that the allegation of the complainant to the effect that he entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for more than 10 times and the vehicle returned with defect to the complainants are also false.  According to him, the replacement of all the tyres were happened due to the normal wear and tear of the vehicle and the above said tyres are purchased from open market.  According to the opposite party, they attended all the maintenance work when the vehicle was brought for periodical service up to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on the part of this opposite party.  Hence opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

                   4. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues.

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
3. Regarding relief and cost?

                    5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself filed a proof affidavit in place of chief examination and marked Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the copy of certificate dated 05.09.2013.  Ext.A2 is the copy of cash bill No.1953 dated 14.04.2014 for Rs.4,900/-.  Ext.A3 is the copy of bill No.377 dated 17.08.2014 for Rs.4,900/-.  Ext.A4 is the copy of bill No.88 dated 15.04.2015 for Rs.1,950/-.  Ext.A5 is the copy of wheel alignment result dated 01.09.2014.  Ext.A6 is the Job Card Retail Invoice dated 13.07.2015.  Ext.A7 is the Job Card Retail Invoice dated 14.12.2015. On the other hand, though the counsel appearing for the opposite party cross-examined PW1, the opposite party did not adduce any evidence on their part.  The 2^nd complainant in his proof affidavit as PW1 deposed more or less in terms of his complaint.  He deposed that his wife who is the 1^st complainant in this case is the registered owner of Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-01 AS 1647 and on 05.09.2013 he paid to Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party and availed an Indus Service Package for his vehicle.  He deposed that the opposite party did not perform the repairing works properly and with the satisfaction of the complainants.  According to PW1, due to the defect of tyre alignment work of the opposite party it is happened to change all the tyres of his vehicle within a short span of time.  Even though, PW1 informed the side pulling and unusual sound from the engine side of the vehicle the opposite party did not care to attend these defects.  As stated earlier, the counsel appearing for the opposite party cross-examined this PW1 but no oral or documentary evidence were adduced in favour of the opposite party before this Forum.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both the counsels and case posted for orders.

                   6. Point No.1:- The opposite party raised a preliminary issue in this case to the effect that the case is not maintainable before the Forum.  When we examine this issue we can easily come to a conclusion that the 1^st complainant in this case is the registered owner of the vehicle she who paid Rs.9,000/- to opposite party on 05.09.2013 and availed a special scheme named Indus Service Package from the opposite party.  Hence it is clear that the 1^st complainant paid Rs.9,000/- as the consideration of a service package of 3 years for the vehicle from the opposite party.  So it is proved that the complainants are consumers of the opposite party and the opposite party is a service provider to the complainants.  Hence Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.

                   Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When considering Point No.2 it is already come out in evidence to the effect that the 1^st complainant is the registered owner of Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-01 AS 1647 and she availed an Indus Service Package on 05.09.2013.  As per Ext.A1, it is evident to see that 1^st complainant availed the said package policy and its validity is from 2^nd August 2013 to 1^st August 2016.  These facts are admitted by both the parties.  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party acted as per the terms and condition of the said policy.  PW1 in this case deposed that the opposite party failed to rectify the defect of the vehicle as per the terms and condition of Ext.A1.  The main contention of PW1 is that there is an extra sound produced from the engine portion of the vehicle and the vehicle has a left side pulling.  When we peruse the evidence before us, it is to see that opposite party has taken a stand to the effect that they rectified all the defect of the complainant.  It is clear that except the total denial of the allegation with regard to the defect of the complainants’ vehicle which was referred above, no substantial evidence to see that the opposite party has rectified the defect of the vehicle.  If so, we have to decide who is responsible to rectify the defect.  When we peruse Ext.A1 policy, it is clear that the opposite party is bound to do all free repair against all periodic maintenance service of the vehicle within the stipulated period of Ext.A1’s validity.  However, it can be seen that the validity time of Ext.A1 service package is expired only on 1^st August 2016.  So we can easily find that the opposite party is liable to do free repair against all the periodic maintenance.  It is also admitted that the opposite party is liable to bear the labour charge and the complainant has to bear the material cost for the said maintenances.  These terms and conditions are stated in Ext.A1 and at the time of cross-examination PW1 also admitted this fact.  He answered in cross, “ഈ ISP പ്രകാരം spare partsþൻറെ ചെലവ് customer വഹിക്കണം എന്നത് ശരിയാണ്.  Labour Service free ആയി ലഭിച്ചിരുന്നു.”  On the basis of answer in cross-examination and as per the terms and condition of Ext.A1, the opposite party ought to have done the necessary maintenance work of the vehicle when it occurred.  It is clear that even though the opposite party did some repair work in the above said vehicle the main complaint raised by the complainants were not rectified by the opposite party.  If so, the next question to be considered is whether the defect alleged by the complainant above with regard to his vehicle is comes under this ISP scheme.  It is to be noted that the opposite party either in his version or at the time of cross-examining PW1, no such defence or suggestion be raised.  So we would like to arrive a conclusion that the defect raised by the complainants with regard to this vehicle is sustainable and comes under the purview of this scheme.  The complainant in this case raised a contention that these tyres are replaced due to the defect of fair maintenance of wheel alignment by the opposite party.  In order to substantiate these facts either the complainant or the opposite party did not adduce any sufficient evidence before us.  Moreover, there is no evidence to see that how much kilometres the prior tyres were used for plying.  It is to be further noted that the prior tyres are not produced before the Forum or the complainant failed to adduce any expert report with regard to the prior tyres.  Anyway, it is come out in evidence that the opposite party failed to rectify the main defect of the vehicle raised by the complainants’ in time and it also proved that these defects are liable to be rectified by the opposite party as per the terms of Ext.A1.  The delay in resolving the complaints of the complainants are clearly comes under the purview of deficiency in service as per the provisions of C.P. Act.  No doubt, we can arrive a conclusion that the non performance of the rectification of the genuine defect of the vehicle was seriously affected to the complainant and it caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Ext.A2, A3, A4 are the details showing the cost of the parts of the vehicle.  Anyway, as per the terms and condition of Ext.A1 policy the price of spare parts not comes under the purview of the said ISP scheme.  As per Ext.A5, it is proved that a wheel alignment test was done on 01.09.2014 for the said vehicle.  Either the complainant or the opposite party give much stress on this Ext.A5 at the time of hearing.  From this Ext.A5 it can be inferred that wheel alignment tests are somehow conducted by the complainant for his vehicle.  Ext.A7 is the bill issued from the Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd. Service Centre, Pathanamthitta on 14.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,790/- that also it is clear that only Rs.458/- was the labour charge.  No doubt, the complainant is eligible to get that amount from the opposite party as per Ext.A1.  None of the contesting parties did not raise any contention with regard to Ext.A7 bill even at the time of trial or hearing hence we can discard the evidence of Ext.A7 for deciding this issue.  In the light of the evidence as discussed above, we find that the opposite party failed to comply the terms and conditions or Ext.A1 package scheme and the complainant is eligible to get a reasonable package scheme and the complainant is also eligible to get a reasonable compensation from the opposite party for their failure to comply the terms and condition of the above said package policy.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 are found accordingly.

                   In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of the petitioners’ vehicle within 1 month of the receipt of this order and the opposite party is also directed to inform his willingness to comply the order within one week of receipt of this order to the complainant No.1 with a letter in registered post.  If the opposite party fails to comply this order as stated above the opposite party is liable to return the ISP premium amount Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) with 10% interest to the complainant from the date of the said ISP dated 05.09.2013 onwards.

2. The opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% to the complainant from the date of order onwards.

3. A cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from the opposite party with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2016.

                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :    (Sd/-)  

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :    (Sd/-) 

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Shajeev. S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of certificate dated 05.09.2013. 

A2 :  Copy of cash bill No.1953 dated 14.04.2014 for Rs.4,900/-. 

A3 :  Copy of bill No.377 dated 17.08.2014 for Rs.4,900/-. 

A4 :  Copy of bill No.88 dated 15.04.2015 for Rs.1,950/-. 

A5 :  Copy of wheel alignment result dated 01.09.2014. 

A6 :  Job Card Retail Invoice dated 13.07.2015. 

A7 :  Job Card Retail Invoice dated 14.12.2015.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

                                                                       (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Luckymol. P.R., Sairam, Anayara.P.O.,

          Thiruvananthapuram Dist., Pin – 695 029.

2. Sajeev. S, Ambadi, Pathiyoorkala, Keerikkadu.P.O.,

          Alapuzha Dist., Pin – 690 508.

3. Works Manager, Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thoppil Complex,

                   Mallappally West.P.O., Pin – 689 585,

                   Pathanamthitta Dist.,

4. Stock File.