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. 97/2014
Wednesday, the 30th day of March, 2016
Petitioner : Abraham K.A.
Grace Villa,
Muttambalam P.O.
Kottayam – 686 004.
(Adv. Ike Mani)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Kairali Ford,
Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd.
MGF Buildings,
MC Road, Nagambadam,
S.H. Mount P.O. Kottayam -6.
2) Kairali Ford,
MEA Junction,
Chenkotta Road, Karikkode P.O.
Kollam – 691005.
( For Op 1 and 2, Adv. Sheeba Tharakan)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant is as follows.
He had purchased a Ford Fiesta Classic 1.4 DSL from the opposite party as total price of the vehicle as Rs.8,27,047/- being the price including Rs.7,990/-. For extended warranty, insurance Rs.24,178/-, registration charge Rs.350/- road tax Rs.58,580/- and logistic and facilitation charge Rs.5,000/-. The amount was received by the opposite party Rs.10,000/- in cash on 18/04/2012 as advance booking charge and Rs.8,17,047/- by D.D. of SBT on 20/04/2012. The vehicle was used by the petitioner for his personal use and a low kilometre (ie.12,000) was run up to this time. On 31/01/2014 while the petitioner was travelling from Kottayam to Kollam RPM of the car shown very low and hence he could not drive any more, hence the petitioner contacted R.S.A. assistance and as per the directions of the opposite party vehicle was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party. The technicians of the 2nd opposite party inspected the vehicle and informed that there was a complaint for fuel injector as per the advice and direction of the 1st opposite party. Vehicle was repaired at the workshop of the 2nd opposite party even though the vehicle has warranty and the break down was caused during the warranty period and also there was extended warranty, 2nd opposite party charged a bill for Rs.8,405/-. Petitioner was forced to pay the amount. Now, the 1st opposite party informed the petitioner that the work of the vehicle is completed and ready to delivery, when the petitioner approached the 1st opposite party for taking delivery of the vehicle it was informed that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.38,000/-. The petitioner’s vehicle is within the warranty period, petitioner is entitled to get repaired his vehicle as per the conditions of warranty. Now the opposite party is denying his warranty, liability and demanding huge amount from the petitioner. Eventhough, a cash discount of Rs.10,000/- was offered 1st opposite party collected full amount of the vehicle from the petitioner. Even after collecting the amount for extended warranty, no documents relating to the warranty was supplied to the petitioner. There was clear deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Sujith Abraham, Grace Villa, Muttambalam has purchased a Ford Fiesta Car Reg. No KL/05 AE-4995 from the 1st opposite party on 21/04/2012. The petitioner has no authority to file this complaint for and on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. the alleged vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on 31/01/2014 with the complaint that the vehicle stopped while running and that it is not restarting. On inspection it was found that the fuel injector was not working. The fuel injector malfunctioned due to usage of adultered fuel and since the services required by Ford company was not done by the owner of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party informed the petitioner that fuel injector is not working and that is required replacement. Since the petitioner and his son Sujith did not want to respond the cost of replacement. They requested the 2nd opposite party to hand over the fuel injector to one Mr. K.P. Prasad to be repaired outside. Hence the fuel injector was removed from the vehicle and handed over to K.P. Prasad on 04/02/2014. Thereafter, the fuel injector was retuned and refitted the vehicle did not start and so on request of the petitioner and his son, vehicle was towed to Kottayam for repairing the same in some workshop other than that of Ford India Ltd. The petitioner has not serviced the vehicle as required by Ford India Company. Since the above car has not been serviced as required by Ford and since fuel injector was repaired by someone other than a Ford Dealer, new car warranty or the extended warranty cover is not available to the vehicle. Eventhough the 1st breakdown was caused during the warranty period, since the vehicle was not serviced as required by Ford Company and since the fuel injector was repaired by someone other than the Ford Dealer, the vehicle will not get the warranty cover and hence the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of repair / replacement and other incidental expenses. The amount of Rs.8,405/- was charged for removal and refitting of fuel injector and for towing the vehicle from Kollam to Kottayam as required by the petitioner. There was no warranty for such work and expenses. On 07/02/2014, the petitioner reported the very same complaint to the 1st opposite party and the request of the petitioner, the fuel injector 1 and 4 was replaced and the cost of work done comes Rs.38,743/-. The repair work was done at the Ettumanoor branch of Kairali Ford. But after completion of work, the petitioner refused to take delivery of the vehicle stating that he is entitled to get the cost of work done covered under the warranty given for the vehicle. Since the above said car has not been serviced as required by Ford in the vehicle serve requirement stated in the owner’s manual, the extended warranty cover is not available to the vehicle. Moreover the extended warranty is not available for vehicles which are serviced or repaired other than by a Ford Dealer. The fuel injector of the vehicle has been repaired by someone other than a Ford Dealer. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A8 and he was examined as Pw1. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
Heard. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are not provided the facilities to him as per the terms of warranty. According to him, he is entitled the facilities as per the warranty. The opposite parties taken a contention that the vehicle had not properly serviced by the petitioner by the authorised service centres of the Ford Company. According to them, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the complainant’s vehicle has not entitled the facility of warranty due to the complainant. The complainant has not repaired the vehicle with some other workshop other than the authorised service centre of the Ford Company. From the available documents and evidences, it can be seen that the vehicle having some defects in it and the opposite parties tried to rectify the defects. But actually the defects in the vehicle could not completely rectified by the opposite parties. The specific cases of the opposite parties are that the vehicle has not properly serviced by the authorised dealer of the Ford Company.
Admittedly the defect was occurred during the period of warranty. Furthermore, the vehicle having extended warranty also. The opposite party has not disputed the extended warranty. The stand taken by the opposite parties are not sustainable because the alleged defects were occurred during the period of warranty and the opposite parties are liable to cure the defects even if during the period of extended warranty. So we have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result, the complainant is allowed as follows.
- We direct the opposite parties to hand over the vehicle after repairs properly without collecting any amount as fee for the repairs to the complainant and pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of these proceedings.
- We direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to refund Rs.8405/- and Rs.3198/- and Rs.10000/- being the towing charges to the complainant.
All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Fora on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of Performa invoice dtd.18/04/2012
Ext.A2 : Receipt No.0184 dtd.18/04/12 issued by 1st op.
Ext.A3 : Receipt No. 208 dtd.20/04/12 issued by 1st op.
Ext.A4 : Copy of cash bill dtd.21/04/12
Ext.A5 : Tax invoice dtd.25/02/13 for Rs.3198
Ext.A6 : Tax invoice for Rs.8405.
Ext.A7 : Tax invoice dtd. 30/04/14 for Rs.38750/-
Ext.A8 : Vehicle report card.
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Copy of e-mail letter dtd. 04/02/2014
Ext.B2 : Copy of warranty & service guide (page No. 143 to 159)
Ext.B3 : Account stt. of new car delivery by 1st opposite party
Ext.B4 : Vehicle history report dtd.28/10/15
Ext.B5 : Vehicle history report dtd.28/10/15
Witness
Pw1 : K.A. Abraham
By Order
Senior Superintendent
