Date of filing : 04-08-2009
Date of order ; 29-06-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.174/2009
Dated this, the 29th day of June 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Sayyed Ummer Farook Thangal, } Complainant
S/o. Sayyad Aboobacker Thangal,
R/at. Moola House, Adhur-Pallam,
Adhur.Po. Mulleria.Via.
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv. Ramakrishna Bhat, Kasaragod)
1. Jithesh.C, Showroom in charge, } Opposite parties
German Motors, 143 L&M.BKM Tower,
Nayammarmoola, Vidyanagar.
Kasaragod. 671123.
2. The Sales Manager, German Motors,
B.P. 14A, Valapattanam, Kannur.10.
3. The Sales Manager, German Motors,
118 A, Chungam Junction,
West Hill, Calicut.5
4. Captain D.A.Sebastian, chairman,
German Motors, West Hill,
Chungam, Calicut.5.
(Adv. O.C.Rajagopalan, Hosdurg) O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Bereft of unnecessaries, the brief facts of the case of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a “CHEVROLET TAVERA” vehicle from opposite party No.1 in May 2009 by paying an excess amount of `1,400/-. But opposite party No.1 did not provide tool kit for the vehicle. Moreover, the colour of the vehicle is entirely different than he ordered. On observation it was found that the vehicle is used and a second hand vehicle. Eventhough the complainant made many complaints before opposite party No.1 regarding the defects of the vehicle it is not rectified yet. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. According to opposite parties, it is true that complainant purchased a Chevrolet Tavera car from opposite parties after satisfying the same. If there arises any defect on the vehicle it will be rectified at companies expenses. The complainant booked for the colour “Savanna Green” and the same colour was given. At the time of delivery of the vehicle tool kit was provided which include wheel spander and Jacky. But after months the complainant asked for another kit informing that he lost the tool kit and the company agreed to provide another tool kit as agreed. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and asked him to replace the vehicle with another colour, since opposite party No.1 was only an employee he could not heed to the request of the complainant, this caused personal animosity with opposite partyNo.1 which resulted in the filing of this complaint.
3. According to opposite party No.4, complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with the condition and appearance of the vehicle. Tool kit was also provided to him at the time of delivery itself. The vehicle was brought to the Kasaragod branch only once and he was not satisfied with the services rendered. Later he took the vehicle to a private workshop which was not authorized by the manufacturer. This was in total violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the manufacturer. It is specifically printed in the brochure that “Accessories shown may not be part of standard equipment”. The expert suggested by the complainant already inspected the vehicle and the vehicle does not suffer any manufacturing defect.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A14 marked. Ext.C1 also marked. Complainant filed IA.191/100 to set aside the expert’s report and filed another IA to issue fresh commission. Complainant cross-examined on affidavit. Both sides heard and materials on record verified.
5. Now the points arises for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
6. Point No.1. The complainant, who is a business man purchased “Tavera” from opposite parties as he used to travel very much every day. At that time green colour Tavera was not available so opposite party No.1 informed me that green colour will be delivered after six months. Thus in May 2009 he purchased the same by paying an excess amount of `1,400/- which opposite party No.1 assured to return within one week. On the next day of getting delivery of the vehicle, complainant realised that the colour of the vehicle delivered to him is entirely different than he selected seeing broucher Ext.A1. Complainant produced Ext.A2 undertaking given by opposite party No.1, that the complainant was not availed tool kit at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Moreover, there was deficiency in service on their part, that will not repeat thereafter. Immediately he contacted opposite party No.1 but he was helpless. This caused much mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant. When the complainant took the vehicle for free service to opposite party No.1 the body of the car was washed. Ext.A3 shows opposite party No.1 charged an amount of `1603/- from him. Later when opposite party No.2 had sent a retail cash memo to the complainant, he requested opposite party No.1 for underwashing of the vehicle but opposite party No.1 informed him to take the vehicle to Kannur, it will not be done at Naimarmoola. Theses facts were not disclosed to the complainant at the time of purchase. Thereafter when the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.1 for 3rd free service also, only the body wash of the car was done for which opposite party No.1 charged `824/- as per Ext.A4. Eventhough the complainant insisted for underwashing of the vehicle it was refused. Hence the complainant took the vehicle to a private service station at Panarkulam bill issued by National Service Station Panarkulam for underwashing is produced by the complainant which is Ext.A6. Totally dissatisfied with the vehicle complainant requested for an expert commission for a detailed inspection. Ext.A4 is the 1st report in which the colour of the vehicle is mistakenly mentioned as Savanna Green. So the complainant requested to set aside the first report seeking another expert commission before the Forum. Thus 2nd commissioner’s appointed and after detailed investigation he filed report, Ext.C2.
7. As per Ext.C2 the vehicle is 2009 model Tavera motor car delivered on 18-05-2009. Now the vehicle is done 68390 KM on 14-12-2010 itself proves that the vehicle is not an old one. In Ext.C2 report, expert states that complaints depend upon how the vehicle is used. Here the dissatisfaction arises on the part of the complaint towards opposite parties due to non-providing of ‘tool kit’ at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle in order to prove the same complainant produced Ext.A2 undertaking given by opposite party to the complainant. The expert in his Ext.C2 report, has reported that the Mechanical Condition of the vehicle is seen satisfactory on his test. He opined that many of the allegations raised by the complainant are false and baseless from the finding of the expert it is clear that there is no reason to give an order in his favour. However, the non-supply of tool kit along with vehicle is an unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. However smaller will be the cost of tool kit. Tool kit is a part of the vehicle without which the sale was not complete selling the vehicle without a tool kit is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. This caused mental agony to the complainant. This negligent act of opposite party No.1 is the root cause for the allegations raised by the complainant thereafter.
Hence we are directing opposite party No.1 provide tool kit of the vehicle with a compensation of `3000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which `3000/- will carry interest @ 9% from May 2009 until payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Brochure
A2.Receipt issued by German Motors, Calicut.
A3.Retail Cash memo
A4. Receipt
A5. Repair Order
A6. Receipt issued by National Service Station. Chengala
A7.. Repair Order
A8. Order Booking Form
A9. Invoice.
A10. Cash bill
A11.& A11(a) Cash bill
A12 to A14 Bills.
Ext.C1. Commission report.
Ext.C2. Commission report.
PW1. Sayyed Ummer Farook Thangal.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
