BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Member
And
Smt. V.J.
Monday, the 7th day of July, 2008.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 60/2007
Between:
S. Age
R/o Ladella Village,
Atmakur Warangal District. … Complainant
AND
1.
General Manager – Marketing & Development Officer,
P.B.No.1305 480, Anna Madras – 600 035.
2. The Branch Manager,
Service Center, 8571, R.P. Road,
P.B.No.1827,
3. The Manager, Auto Mobile
Survey No.73, (Part), Medichal High Way No.7,
4. The Manager,
Warangal (Local Service Center). … Opposite parties
Counsel for Complainant : Sri
Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to Sri B. Advocate.
Opposite party Did not appear and has been set
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant S.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The Opposite party No.1 is the Manufacturer of Warangal for The complainant has purchased In continuation of its use and utilization within a short period of 4 months only, the said Tipper started giving problems due to defect in certain The complainant approached Then the complainant made several rounds to the opposite party No.2, he represented that to inform the same to Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant brought the vehicle back from Opposite party No.1 and got is repaired replaced the damaged and broken parts and spent more than Rs.40 Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued 6-11-04. As such he
Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed the Written contending in brief as follows:
The complainant is not entitled to get anything because there are no defects on the part of the vehicle and further there is delay in filing of this case before this Forum and it is barred by limitation and for that also the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or anything as prayed by the complainant.
The Complainant in support of his
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.40
After arguments of both side counsels this Forum has to see whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties or not?
For this our answer is that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties because in this case the complainant purchased a Tipper on 13-1-2001 and the guarantee for free services was till the said vehicle runs 1,50,000 After four months the Tipper gave problem due to defect in certain parts of the engine. The complainant informed the same to the Opposite parties, but it was not repaired and kept for more than three months with opposite party No.1 and he brought the tipper and got it repaired and spent Rs.40
The Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed the Written Version stating that the complainant is not entitled to get anything because there are no defects on the part of the vehicle and further there is delay in filing of this case before this Forum and for that also the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or anything as prayed by the complainant.
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
The first contention of the Opposite parties is that there is delay in filing of this petition by the complainant. that point this case is certainly going to be dismissed. As per the Opposite parties arguments that the said vehicle was purchased on 13-1-2001 and also he spent an amount of Rs.40 Hence, for the alleged cause of action 24-11-2005, so it is barred by limitation.
For this our answer is that under Section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the present case because there is no any delay. It is true the vehicle was purchased on 13-1-2001 and he spent an amount of Rs.40 But the complainant sent the legal notice to the opposite parties on 6-11-2004 and the case is filed on 3-11-2005 even though the complainant purchased the vehicle on 13-1-2001 and spent an amount of Rs.40 6-11-2004. From that date onwards within 2 years the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum or not. For this from the date of Ex.A-3 legal notice the Forum has to count the period from Ex.A-3 to till the date of filing of the complaint. In this case Ex.A-3 legal notice issued to 6-11-2004 and the complainant filed this case before this Forum on 3-11-2005 so the complaint is within time as per Section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is clear within 2 years from the date of issue of legal notice the complainant has to file complaint before this Forum. Like wise within time the complainant filed this case before this Forum. So the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint has not filed within time and it is barred by limitation does not arise and the complaint is filed by the complainant is within time. There is no any delay and the complaint is not barred by limitation.
Further the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.40 For this our answer is that the complainant is not entitled to get anything because as per the Warrantee card For this our answer is that the complainant availed two free services at 8,000 It was noticed by the service engineer of The Service Engineer also observed that the driver of the said vehicle was having wrong driving practices like cultch over riding etc., The complainant and the driver were explained that the norms prescribed by the manufacturer are to be followed for proper maintenance of the vehicle and for applicability of the warranty given by the manufacturer. On 14-7-2001 the complainant brought the vehicle to opposite party No.4 complaining unusual noise in the gear box and again the service engineer inspected the vehicle and informed the complainant that claim cannot be accepted under the warranty on account of defects in the maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant.
In Ex.A-17 Warranty card it clearly mentioned that warranty shall become null and void if the vehicle is used in ways not recommended by the company, if any features of the vehicle are modified, if the vehicle is repaired or disassembled, even partially, by persons not belonging to
So in the above condition it clearly goes to show that if the owner got repaired the vehicle without the knowledge of the company if he purchased or sold any parts of the vehicle the company is not liable in warranty period, certainly the company is not liable to pay the amount to the seller it is mentioned that when a part is replaced under the terms of warranty the benefits of the warranty shall apply to the replacement part for the remainder of the 18 months period or 1,50,000
If really he replaced any part of the vehicle certainly the owner of the vehicle should submit the bill, then the company shall repay the same bill amount to the owner of the vehicle. But in this case the complainant stated that he already spent an amount of Rs.40 But he has not produced any scrap of bill before this Forum to show that he spent an amount of Rs.40 So certainly the complainant has to produce the bills of Rs.40 When the complainant has not filed any bills before this Forum, he is not entitled to get an amount of Rs.40
Moreover in this case the Engineer observed that the driver of the said vehicle was having wrong driving practices like clutch over riding etc. The complainant and the driver were explained that the norms prescribed the manufacturer are to be followed for proper maintenance of the vehicle and for applicability of the warranty given by the manufacturer. On 14-7-01 the complainant brought the vehicle to So if it is really the defect in the engine from the manufacture
When already the engineer found and explained to the the complainant is not entitled because under warranty due to above overloading unauthorized modifications carried out and the same was accordingly rejected by the manufacturer. The same was there in warranty So as the engineer contention that there is a fault on the driver of the vehicle so the company is not liable for the same defects and further the company is liable only for mechanical defects but here the complainant already running the vehicle on contract basis and over loaded the engine parts of the tipper damaged then the complainant replaced the same and spent an amount of Rs.40 But here the documents filed by the complainant When he has not filed any bill before this Forum that he spent an amount of Rs.40 It might be true that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.40
Further the opposite parties cited a judgment in 2004 (1) CPR 295
Motors … Appellant
Vs
Ram Rattan … Respondent
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Manufacturing defect but such evidence was examined – Never car was taken to workshop of party it was attended to promptly and there was no any deficiency of service”.
This judgment is applicable to the case of opposite parties because if there is any defect in manufacturing certainly the company is liable.
And another judgment cited 2004 (2) CPR 513
Pathankot … Appellant
Vs
Prof.Lalita Jammu & Others ….. Consumer protection act, 1986 – Sections 2(1 bearing – Non removal of defect – complaint filed alleging manufacturing defect in car – District Forum ordered for replacement – Vehicle cannot be ordered
So this judgment is applicable to the case of opposite parties because there is no any manufacturing defect in the engine of the complainant vehicle so he is not entitled anything from the opposite parties.
And further cited judgment in 2003 (2) CPR 317
V.Vishwanathan .. Appellant/complainant
Managing Director … Respondent/Opposite parties Sections 12 and 17 - Three wheeler
So the above cited judgment also applicable to the case of opposite parties against the complainant, because there is no any manufacturing defect in the complainant tipper.
Since there is no any manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle of the complainant and further there is no any documentary proof to show that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.40 For the foregoing reasons given by us we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get anything from the opposite parties and we answered this point accordingly in
Point NO.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in
In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 7th July, 2008).
Member Member President,
District Consumer forum, Warangal.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined.
]
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties
Affidavit of complainant and deposition Affidavit filed on behalf of O.P.1
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Letter from Opposite party No.4 to counsel for complainant, dt.22-02-05.
- Ex.A-2 Letter from
- Ex.A-3 O/c of legal notice issued to Opposite parties, dt.6-11-04.
- Ex.A-4 & A-5 Acknowledgment receipt.
- Ex.A-6 Letter from
- Ex.A-7 Estimation from New
- Ex.A-8 Sale Certificate of Automotive Manufacturers Limited.
- Ex.A-9 Letter from Sri
- Ex.A-10 Initial Certificate of Road Worthiness issued by
- Ex.A-11 Certificate of with pollution standards issued by
- Ex.A-12 Invoice of Automotive Manufacturers Limited.
- Ex.A-13 Acknowledgment letter, 14-3-01.
- Ex.A-14 Product Performance Report.
- Ex.A-15 BNR
- Ex.A-16 Product Performance report.
- Ex.A-17 Warranty
- Ex.A-18 Guide for Ecology and Economy.
On behalf of
1. Ex.B-1 Letter from
|
