Kerala

Idukki

CC/69/2022

Annamma K C - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indus Motors Kattappana - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 4.5.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  4^th  day of  November,  2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.69/2022

     Between

Complainant                                        :   Annamma K.C.,

                                                                Puthenpurayil House,

                                                                Chithirapuram South,

                                                                Idukki – 685 565.

        And

Opposite Party                                     :   Indus Motors,

                                                                 Kattappana, Idukki Kavala,   

                                                                 Bypass Road, Idukki,

                                                                 Pin : 685 508.

(By Adv: Sajith Thomas)

 

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

          1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant had purchased a Maruti K10 automatic car from 1^st opposite party, namely, Indus Motors, Kattappana, bearing Reg. No.KL-68A-5597, on 12.4.2019.  On 23.6.2021, the vehicle was serviced at the authorised service centre of Indus Motors company, in Kattappana, for Rs.3,775.51/-.  At the time of service, a lengthy oil filter which was not suitable for use in the said model of car was fitted in it, by the service personnel, without knowledge of complainant.  As a result, vehicle had broken down on 12.4.2022, when complainant along with her family were travelling in it from Thirupur to Kumili, at a place called Oddanchatram, near to GH Hospital.  Thereafter a technician from nearby workshop had inspected the vehicle and informed the complainant that oil filter fixed in the engine was not suited for it.  This had caused oil leakage and damage to engine.  When complainant had contacted authorised service centre of Indus Motors at Kattappana, which had serviced the vehicle earlier, she was informed that an amount of Rs.59,000/- would be required for repairing the vehicle, though it had warranty and                                                                                                           (cont ......2)

• 2  -

insurance coverage.  Since the said authorised service centre was about 200 kms away from the place where car had broken down, complainant had got the car repaired from a private service centre, namely, S.S. Car Care, at Oddanchatram.  The vehicle was duly repaired and taken back on 26.4.2020.  Complainant had to pay Rs.40,150/- towards repair charges.  It was at this time that the complainant had realised that engine damage was caused due to fitting of unsuitable oil filter.  Complainant submits that fitting of an oil filter not suitable for car engine is a matter of deficiency in service and neglect on the part of opposite party.  She therefore seeks for reimbursement of repair charges amounting to Rs.40,150/- and compensation of Rs.1 lakh from opposite party. 

 

          2. Complaint was taken on file.  Though notice was served, opposite party has not filed any written statement within time.  Therefore, case was posted for complainant’s evidence.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.  After hearing the complainant, case was taken for orders. Subsequently, on 1.8.2022, opposite party had filed an application to review the earlier order dated 4.7.2022, thereafter to receive written version filed by opposite party and to permit opposite party to cross examine the complainant.  Notice of this application was given to complainant by registered post as she was appearing in person.  She had not filed any written objection. We have heard complainant and opposite party in the matter of review petition seeking composite reliefs and had dismissed it vide a considered order on 29.9.2022.  Now what remains  is only consideration of evidence on record and passing of appropriate orders.

 

          Points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for reimbursement of repair charges paid by her ?

3)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

3.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were admitted in evidence on her side.  Ext.P1 is photocopy of RC  Book of the car.  Ext.P2 is a computer print out of service history of the vehicle maintained by opposite party.  Ext.P3 is a bill for Rs.40,150/-, given by a local service centre at Oddanchatram, for repair of the car.  Ext.P4 is a copy of insurance certificate of the vehicle and Ext.P5 is copy of warranty registration.

 

          Complainant has no specific case that she had preferred a claim with the insurer on the basis of Ext.P4 policy, apparently, for the reason that damage occasioned was not accidental.  According to her, at the time of service on 23.6.2021, an unsuitable oil filter was fixed in the engine which had resulted in braking down of the car and engine                                                                                                                  (cont....3)

• 3  -

damage.  Ext.P2 is computer print out of service history of the car which is a Maruti Alto K10 model, bearing Reg. No.KL-68A-5597.  It is clear from this that the vehicle was indeed serviced by  opposite party on  23.6.2021, for which complainant had paid Rs.3,775.51/- as service charges.  Complainant has then submitted in her complaint that the vehicle had broken down on 12.4.2022, while she was travelling in it along with her family from Thirupur to Kumili, when they had reached a place called Oddanchatram, in Tamil Nadu.  She would contend that a technician of local garage had inspected the vehicle and informed her that a misfitting oil filter was fixed in the engine, which had resulted in oil leakage and consequential engine damage due to which the car had broken down.  Though her evidence in this regard remains unchallenged, we find it  not safe to rely upon it in proof of the facts alleged , for the following reasons.  Firstly, last service done before break down was 23.6.2021.  Car had broken down on 12.4.2022, while it was running.  Alleged breaking down of the vehicle was more than 9 months after servicing, during the course of which, according to complainant, an unsuitable oil filter was installed in the engine.  If the oil filter was unsuitable as such, the car would have shown signs of breaking down much earlier to the alleged incident.  Complainant has no case that the vehicle was not used by her or that it was being used sparingly from 23.6.2021 till 12.4.2022.  Secondly, in the document list given below the complaint, that unsuitable oil filter fixed by opposite party is produced as  the 6^th item, it is seen cut and an endorsement is given in writing by hand that MO is not being produced.  Complainant does not say why this MO is not being produced.  She has no case that the unsuitable oil filter was not given to her by the private service centre at Oddanchatram or that it was lost.  Thirdly, she had not sought for examination of the car by an expert, initially at the time of filing the complaint itself.  Fourthly, even the name of technician who had repaired the engine at Oddanchatram is not mentioned in the complaint.

 

          Under these circumstances, we find that complainant had not succeeded in proving that unsuitable oil filter was fixed to her car engine while it was being serviced by opposite party on 23.6.2021.  That being so, we do not think that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged.  In so far as warranty terms are concerned, vehicle was admittedly repaired at private car service centre which was not an authorised dealer of opposite party.  Though Indus Motors service centre at Kumily may be located at 200 km away from Oddanchatram, the place of incident, complainant has no case that there were no authorised Maruti service centre at or near Oddanchatram. As the vehicle was opened and repaired at service centre which was not authorised, we do not think that opposite party will be liable under the warranty given.  Complainant is not entitled for reimbursement of repair charges or compensation as such.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

                                                                                                              (cont....4)

 

• 4  -

 

Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under these circumstances, without costs. Extra copies filed by parties shall be taken back by them without delay. 

 

 

                       Pronounced by this Commission on this the   4^th  day of November, 2022

 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

          SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                        Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                    Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -  Annamma K.C.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  Copy of Registration Certificate.

Ext.P2    -  copy of service history.

Ext.P3    -  Bill issued from SS Car Care, Oddanchatram.

Ext.P4    -  copy of certificate cum policy schedule.

Ext.P5    -  copy of tax invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

    Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR