IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member 

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 234/2015

Monday, the 3^rd  day of April, 2017

Petitioner                                 :         Thankachan George,

                                                          Thottappallil, Vattukulam P.O.

                                                          Kottayam – 686 587.

                                                                             Vs.

Opposite Parties                      :      1) Jubily Automobiles,

                                                          Kottayam, Nagampadam,

                                                          Pin – 1.

                                                       2) Hero Moto Corp. Ltd.

                                                          No.3E – 2, 3^rd Floor,

                                                          Saniya Plaza,

                                                          Mahakavi Bharatiyar Road,

                                                          Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand,

                                                          Kochi – 682 011.

                                                          (For op 1 and 2, Adv. Shiby Alex)

                                                     3) Mariya Motors,

                                                          Pala Road, Mangarakalingu,

                                                          Ettumanoor – 686 631.

                                                      4) Krupa Motors,

                                                          Pakalomattom P.O.

                                                          Kuravilangadu – 686 633.

                                                          (Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)

                                                          O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

          The case of the complainant filed on 01/09/2015 is as follows.

          The complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-35-E-4025, purchased from the 1^st opposite party become defective within warranty period.  According to the complainant, after 15 months from the date of purchase the vehicle showed oil leak from the engine and on 16/07/2014 it was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party, the authorised service centre and they had repaired the same by replacing the oil seal.  After two months, the vehicle showed the same defect and it was repaired by the 4^th opposite party by replacing the oil seal.  And they collected Rs.500/- as repairing charge.  Since the same defect subsit the vehicle was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party, the another authorised service centre for repair.  They had repaired by replacing the oil seal and gear oil and collected Rs.1,160/- as service charge.  But the same defect of the vehicle continued.  So it was again entrusted to the 4^th opposite party.  They also repaired the vehicle by replacing the oil seal and gear oil and collected Rs.600/- as service charge.  But within one month, the vehicle showed same defect and again it was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party for repair.  And 4^th opposite party again repaired the vehicle by replacing the oil seal and gear oil and collected Rs.410/- as service charge.  But the same defect of the vehicle is subsist.  According to the complainant, the opposite parties has not cared to repair his vehicle in proper by replacing the defective parts within warranty period and collected service charge within warranty period.  The defect of the vehicle is due to an inferior quality of the vehicle.  And the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          Opposite party 1 and 2 jointly filed version contenting that the complainant has not produced his vehicle for service.  They had no knowledge about the works done by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  In recent time the complainant entrusted his vehicle for service and it was properly done.  And now the vehicle is not having any defects.  The complainant has not intimated that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects.  According to them, there was no deficiency in service on the part of them.  And they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          Even after accepting the notice, 3^rd opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.

          4^th opposite party filed version admitting entrustment of the complainant’s vehicle for repair.  According to the 4^th opposite party, on inspection oil leak identified and it was repaired.  The oil seal is not come within warranty.  So they had collected Rs.500/- as repairing charge.  According to the 4^th opposite party, they repaired the vehicle in proper working condition and there was no deficiency in service on the part of them.  4^th opposite party is also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

Points for considerations are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?

          Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant, Manager of the 1^st opposite party and 4^th opposite party and Ext.A1 to A6 documents.

Point No.1

          The case of the complainant is that his vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-35E 4025 become defective within warranty period and so many times it was entrusted to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, the authorised service centre, for repair.    They has not repaired the same in proper and they had collected repairing charges within warranty period.  The 3^rd opposite party has not disputed the case.  According to the 4^th opposite party, they had repaired the vehicle in proper working condition and the oil seal is not come under warranty.  So they had collected Rs.500/-.  Nothing has been produced on record to prove that  the oil seal is not come under warranty.  Complainant produced a cash bill dated 09/04/2014 issued by the 4^th opposite party and the same is marked as Ext. A2.    From Ext.A2, it can be seen that 4^th opposite party had collected Rs.465/- as repairing charge.  Ext.A3 to A5 documents are the estimate issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant.  In Ext.A3 to A5, the total amount shown as Rs.2,170/-.  According to the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party had collected the said amount as repairing charge within warranty period.  Since the 3^rd opposite party has no dispute we inferred that they had collected the said amount.  In proof affidavit complainant admitted that 1^st opposite party had repaired his vehicle in proper by replacing Gear Shaft on warranty and thereafter  the vehicle is not having any defects. In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A6 documents.  In our view, the act of 3^rd and 4^th opposite party in not properly repair the complainant’s vehicle and collected amount as repairing charges within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the said act of opposite parties, complainant suffered much mental   pain and loss.  So he is to be compensated.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.

          In the result,

1. 3^rd opposite party is Ordered to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation including the collected amount to the complainant.
2. 4^th opposite party is Ordered to pay Rs.3,500/- as compensation including the collected amount to the complainant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is Ordered.

The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Order.If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Fora on this the 3rd day of April, 2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, PresidentSd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, MemberSd/-

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, MemberSd/-

Documents of petitioner

Documents of opposite party

By Order,

Senior Superintendent