IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 04/2018 (filed on 11-01-2018)

Petitioner                                          :         Biju V. Jose,

                                                                   Valyara,

                                                                   Mariyappalli,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686013.

                                                                   (Adv. Noble Joseph)

                                                                             Vs.                            

Opposite Parties                               :   1)  Manager,

                                                                   Kairali Ford,

                                                                   MGF Building,

                                                                   M.C. Road, Nagampadom,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686006.

                                                                   (Adv. P. Fazil, Adv. Akash K.R,

                                                                   And Adv. Jithin Paul Varghese)

                                                                2)  Managing Director,

                                                                   Ford India Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                   S P Koil Post,

                                                                   Chengalpattu – 603204.

                                                                   Tamilnadu.

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          The case of the complainant is as follows.

          Complainant was using a Ford car owned by his wife which was purchased during 2007.  The complainant was relaying the 1^st opposite party for service, maintenance and repair of car.  During March 2017, it was noted by the complainant that the reverse gear of the car was not working.  Immediately the car was entrusted with the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the defect.  After a few weeks an employee of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the delay which was caused in rectifying the defect was due to removal of engine and opening of gear box work.    The car was returned to the complainant after repair on 03-04-2017 and the complainant had paid Rs.17,618/-.

          On 27-09-2017 while complainant travelling, the car was stopped at Adoor due to the nonfunctioning of gear.  Soon after that as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant towed the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party repair center at Kottayam.  The mechanic persons of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the car is having gear problem.  For repairing works, 1^st opposite party had availed 3 months.  During the December 2017 it was informed by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant that the repairing work of the car was completed.  On inspection, the complainant found that the vehicle was having problem with AC and engine missing.  These problems were resolved on                                           21-12-2017, the complainant had to pay Rs.39,950/- as bill for the work.                          The problems with A/C and engine missing was not initially at the time of entrusting the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant, if the gear box work was done in proper manner and perfect condition in March 2017, the 2^nd repair work could have been avoided.  It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant had incurred a financial loss to arrange alternative transportation for the period, in which the vehicle was in the custody of the 1^st opposite party for the repair works.  It is alleged in the complaint that the complaints in the gear box occurred in 2^nd time only due to the imperfect repair works which was done by the 1^st opposite party in March 2017 and amounts to deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  Further alleged that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in carrying out the repairing work of the car without inordinate delay.  Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant for reimbursement of Rs.39,900/-, which was spent by him at the 2^nd instance of repair work along with compensation Rs.50,000/-.

          Upon notice, opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version as follows.

          The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is an out of warranty claim as per records maintained by the 1^st opposite party.  The vehicle has covered more than 96,000 kilometers and allegation of manufacturing defect is not sustainable.  On                            31-03-2017, the vehicle was brought to the 1^st opposite party and it was delivered back to the complainant on 03-04-2017.  The complaint raised at this time is that the reverse gear of the vehicle was not functioning and same was duly attended by the 1^st opposite party.  It is submitted in the version that the gear box was not opened for repairing the reverse gear in such a vehicle the gear box need not be opened.  The vehicle was kept in the custody of the 1^st opposite party only for 4 days.   

          The vehicle was bought to the 1^st opposite party again on 05-10-2017 for  complaint of gear box and returned on 20-12-2017.  At this point of time, the complaint noted was gear shift problem and a detailed checkup and subsequent repair of the vehicle was done.  The manufacturer stopped the model almost 10 years back so that the availability of spare parts from manufacturer was difficult and the delay in repairing vehicle was due to this reason.  Though the opposite party offered alternative vehicle to the complainant, which he refused.                          The representative of the 1^st opposite party did not admitted that the gear box was opened for the purpose of the repair.  In the subject vehicle the reverse gear is on the side of the gear box and hence the reverse gear can be repaired without opening the gear box.  During the service undertaken in March to April, the vehicle had covered 90690 kilometers and during the next service on 05-10-17, the vehicle had covered approximately 96785 kilometers.  It is not correct that the vehicle developed other defects like AC defects, engine missing during the period in which vehicle was with the custody of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has raised invoice as per the work is done.  It is false to states that there had been any manufacturing defect, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on account of the 1^st opposite party. 

          Evidence of this case consist of deposition of Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A9 were marked.

          Anand L.V., who is the Service Manager of the 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for an on behalf of the 1^st opposite party and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. 

          On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following points.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party?
3. If so, what are the reliefs?

Point No.1

     The specific case of the complainant is that the complainant had entrusted

the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the defects of the said car during March 2017 and further on 05-10-2017.  Opposite party had not disputed these facts.  The specific case of the complainant is that though he had entrusted the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party during March 2017 to rectify the problem in reverse gear of the car.  Same was not properly done by the 1^st opposite party.  According to Pw1 due to the lack of perfection in the repairing work which had been done by the 1^st opposite party in March 2017, within a period of 6 months the same problem occurred.  Ext.A1 which is the repair order and repair order bill dtd.31-03-17 proves that complainant had paid Rs.17,618/- to the opposite party for the repair works which had been done by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 that is a repair order dtd.06-10-17 and tax invoice dtd.05-10-17 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.39,950/- to the 1^st opposite party for the repair work which had been done by them in the 2^nd instance.  Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant had availed the service of the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the defects of the car by paying consideration for the same and hence the complainant is consumer of the opposite party

Point No.2 and 3.

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.

As discussed earlier, the specific case of the complainant is that if the 1^st opposite party had executed the repair works in a proper and perfect manner.  The complaint of gear box could not have been occurred after the lapse of short span of time.  Ext.B1 proves that during March 2017, the opposite party had rectified the defects of gear shift lever.  Apart from the rectification of gear shift problem, the 1^st opposite party had done certain repair works on dent/scratch in Bumper.  Ext.B1 proves that the main complaint with the subject vehicle in March 2017 was with the gear shift problem and that was rectified by the 1^st opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that on 31-03-2017 the vehicle had already covered 96,690 kilometers.  Ext.B2 is none other than Ext.A2.

The complaint at that time was the gear shift problem.  Ext.B2 proves that major repair work carried out in the gear box assembly and problem was relieved by the opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that between the 2 repair works the vehicle had been completed more than 6,000 kilometers.  Though the complainant alleged an improper repair works done by the 1^st opposite party he did not adduce any evidence regarding the inadequacy in the work carried out by the 1^st opposite party.  He had not adduced any expert evidence to prove that there is an imperfection in the repair works done by the 1^st opposite party.  It is admitted by the complainant that the vehicle had already covered near 1,00,000 kilometers and vehicle is old more than 10 years.  On a thoughtful evaluation of complaint and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with cogent evidence.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence complaint dismissed.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 11^th   day of   August,  2021.

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member               Sd/-  

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-  

Appendix

Witness from the side of complainant

Pw1 – Biju V. Jose

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  :  Copy of repair order dtd.31-03-17 by Kairali Ford.

A2 – Copy of repair order dtd.05-10-17 by Karali Ford

A3- Copy of receipt No.269 dtd.27-09-17 by Sun Shine Crane & Recovery Services

A4 – Website print out of previous owner details from Motor Vehicles Dept.

A5 – Website print out of registration details (KL-07-BF-5382) from Motor

        Vehicles Dept.

A6-Website print out of registration details (KL-07-BF-5382) from Motor

        Vehicles Dept.

A7 -Website print out of registration details (KL-07-BF-5382) from Motor

        Vehicles Dept.

A8- Copy of request form for repair by Kairali Ford.

A9- Copy of receipt dtd.03-04-17 by Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of repair order dtd.02-04-17 by Kairali Ford

B2 - Copy of repair order dtd.05-10-17 by Karali Ford

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                               Senior Superintendent