- Pankaj Agarwal,
P-66/4, Strand Bank Road, Kolkata-6 and
Maa Niwas, T-37, Teghoria Road,
Hatiyara, Kolkata-59. ________Complainant
____Versus____
- Lexus Motors Ltd.,
Karnani Estates, 209, AJC Bose Road,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Maidan.
- Tata Motors,
Apeejay House Block,
15, Park Street, 5th Floor, Kolkata-16. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 13 Dated 28/08/2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one Indica Vista Aura Quadra being regn. no.WB 06B 5514 having engine no.100A20000020003 and chassis no.MAT6114529PD34549 from Lexus Motors on 27.8.09. For the purchasing the said car the complainant availed financial assistance from HDFC Bank Ltd. The said car is used by the complainant for personal use. At the time of the said vehicle the complainant was offered a scheme where it was promised that the complainant would be getting an additional warranty of two years after expiry of manufacturer warranty of two years if the complainant would pay Rs.3625/- to o.ps. The manufacturer warranty was from 27.8.09 to 26.8.11. The complainant opted and accepted the said offer of extended warranty of two years by paying Rs.3625/- in cash on 27.8.09. On 9.10.12 when the complainant was on his way to his resident the car was certainly broke down and stopped running. The complainant has arranged to send the car to the company’s work shop for rectification of the defect. He also presented the receipt of the scheme for extended two years warranty to take the benefit of such scheme. But to his utter surprise the work shop refused to accept the policy by saying that the policy was meant for an extended period of one year not for two years and the complainant was informed that necessary charges of rectification of defect would have to be paid by him. The said car was lying parked at the workshop for quite a week and the complainant was informed that around Rs.25,000/- would be the cost which would be incurred for rectification. Complainant was informed that he had to pay the amount. However, he sent a legal notice dt.19.10.12 to the o.ps. intimating about the illegal acts and demands of the o.ps. The said vehicle was handed over to the complainant and he had to pay Rs.24,136/- to the o.ps. Hence the application with prayer for refund the amount of Rs.24,136/- for rectification of his car along with compensation and litigation cost.
Both o.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v.
In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied all material allegations interalia stated that the extra payment of Rs.625/- was charged for one year not for two years. They have also stated that the money receipt of Rs.3625/- which was annexed with the complaint petition not for extended warranty purpose as there is no clause in the insurance policy given by the dealer expired on completion of four years or 1,50,000 km from the date of purchase which was earlier. Complainant was categorically informed by them that the extended warranty benefit would be paid to the customer upto one year along with additional discount of the vehicle concerned. So the present case is frivolous and vexatious and as such, the same be dismissed with cost.
O.p. no.2 also denied all material allegations interalia stated that complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute under the C.P. Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle in question nor any deficiency in service against this o.p. The car has been purchased by way of financial assistance from HDFC Bank and as such, it is apparent that the said car is under hypothecation and the complainant is only the beneficiary. The rectification charge was paid to o.p. no.1 by complainant and no direct service was provided by o.p. no.2 to the complainant. Complainant did not send any demand notice to o.p. no.2 and no cause of action arose against them. So, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the car in question and for purchasing the said car he availed of financial assistance from HDFC Bank Ltd. It is also admitted fact that on 9.10.12 the car of the complainant was not in a position to ply. Accordingly complainant sent the car to the work shop of the company for rectification of the defect and at the time of delivery of the car he had to pay Rs.24,136/- for the repairing of the car in question. Complainant purchased the car on 27.8.09 and there was the manufacturer warranty for the said vehicle from 27.8.09 to 26.8.11. Now the moot question for consideration that on the day of break down of the car i.e. 9.10.12 was in the period of extended warranty or not. Complainant has filed with his complaint petition as marked ‘B’ where the name of complainant was written as owner’s name along with the vehicle purchase date. In this policy schedule paper it was clearly written that “This Policy is Valid for two year after expiration of manufacturers warranty”. It is also written in this form that the policy will expire on completion of four years or 1,50,000 km from the date of purchase whichever is earlier and the duration of coverage is two extended warranty in addition to the manufacturers warranty. This proposal form / policy schedule contains the dealer’s signature along with dealer‘s stamp. So, we cannot disbelieve this document and the break down of the car was occurred in the extended period of two years beyond the manufacturers warranty of two years. O.p. no.1 has annexed one policy details for entire cover note number where we have not found any policy number for the vehicle in q question. O.p. no.1 also has not challenged the proposal form / policy schedule which was annexed as mark ‘B’ with the complaint petition. O.p. no.1 has also not challenged that the car has already run beyond 1,50,000 km. So the complainant is entitled to get relief as there is deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. by claiming the rectification charge for the car in question in the period of extended period of two years warranty.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.24,136/- (Rupees twenty four thousand one hundred thirty six) only towards the cost incurred for the rectification for the car in question by the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
