The complainant has taken delivery of Nova Diesel Ambassador car model 1991 on 13.9.91 from 3^rd respondent. The vehicle was registered as KL-8A/6996(All India Tourist Taxi) under hypothecation agreement with South Indian Bank, Irinjalakuda. At the time of delivery of the vehicle it was stated that the vehicle is in very good condition and free from any defects. But some defects were found before use such as (i) body was rattling, (ii) Doors could not be closed properly due to rough finishing, (iii) want of alignment of wheels and (iv) shaking of suspension, steering etc. Besides the sheets on the body and doors were not properly welded, raw sheets are seen used even without removing rust and body of the car was not properly welded with the chasis. For rectifying the defects so as to produce the vehicle for obtaining certificate of fitness and permit the complainant approached the respondents-2 and 4. But both of them did not respond. The complainant was not issued with the emigration certificate from the first respondent. The complainant who was an unemployed person and residing at Thrissur district, it was very difficult and expensive for him to take the vehicle to Pondichery Depot to rectify the defect of the same. The 2^nd and 4^th respondents are authorised dealers of Ambassador Nova car are bound to rectify the defects which was produced before them for that purpose. So the complainant was forced to get rectified the defects of the vehicle temporarily at a private workshop. Consequently fitness certificate would be obtained only on 8.10.91 and permit on 10.10.91 after an elapse of 22 days. The complainant had made an expense of Rs.13,503/- for the unexpected works in addition to the time lost. He has faced with these expenses and difficulties only due to the manufacturing defect and hostile attitude of the respondents. So he had sent a registered lawyer notice to respondents-1 and 2 but no reply was received. In addition to the above works the defective suspension and steering box system had to be replaced, for which heavy expenses were due. It is needless to say about the heavy loss of money by way of costs of spare parts, workshop charges, autorickshaw hire charges etc. All these caused only due to the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint.

 

            2. The counter of first respondent in brief is that the relationship between this respondent and its dealer is on principal to principal basis. The dealer is not an agent and has not any kind of relationship as an agent with this respondent. The dealer is carrying on the business of buying and selling of motorcars independently. The cars manufactured by the first respondent are defect free and are in good condition at the time of sale. It is also true that all parts go through quality checks at every stage to final product. If the defect had been noticed even prior to the use he should not have accepted the car. The alleged defects made out by the complainant in para-4 are totally false and denied. No such complaint ever existed in the car purchased by the complainant. No new car manufactured by this respondent ever required any repairs or for obtaining certificate of fitness and permit. Even at the time of taking delivery of the car the complainant has not raised any complaint with regard to the road worthiness or fitness of the car. The complainant was entitled to have the alleged defects if any cured and removed prior to taking delivery. If there was any defect in the car the complainant was entitled to have the same serviced and attended by the dealers of this respondent under warranty given by this respondent. It is pertinent to note that the service voucher book contains a migration coupon whereby an owner can avail the service under the warranty from the nearest dealer. Without a migration certificate the complainant cannot approach the 3^rd respondent. The allegation that the complainant was not issued with the migration certificate is false. The handbook with regard to the car was handed over to the dealer when the car was sold and delivered to the dealer by this respondent. The said handbook contains a coupon with regard to the migration. The complainant has not obtained migration certificate which would enable him to have the service rendered under the warranty. The complainant had purchased the car at his own volition from Pondicherry knowing fully well of the consequences of such a purchase. He was at liberty to purchase the car from the dealer of this respondent at Thrissur. The complainant had no right to have the car repaired during the warranty period at an unauthorized workshop. The warranty would cease if the car is attended by unskilled and untrained mechanic. The alleged repairs were not required at all and there was no necessity of any painting to be carried out. There was no manufacturing defect whatsoever. The complainant had not issued registered notice to this respondent. There was no defect in suspension and steering box system fitted to the car. The complainant was not maintaining the car carefully and properly. The complainant has not alleged the dates on which he spotted the troubles. The complainant has not made out any case with regard to defective suspension and steering box system which he has alleged to have replaced. He is silent as to where and when the box were allegedly replaced or the bills. This respondent is not responsible for the repairs carried out by the complainant at his own volition. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have never reported any defect during warranty period. The allegation regarding manufacturing defect are totally false. This respondent is not bound to refund any expenses alleged to have been incurred. The complainant has no cause of action against this respondent. It is further submitted that at this late juncture after a lapse of nine years and after having put the car such a long period of use. The defect if any due to manufacturing cannot be ascertained. Hence dismiss the complaint. 

 

            3. The counter of 2^nd respondent is that this respondent is only an authorized dealer and has no personal liability or responsibility in any event. There is no manufacturing defect. The alleged defects mentioned in para-4 are not true or correct. While taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant has unequivocally stated that he is fully satisfied with the vehicle and after passing such acknowledgement and receipt he is estopped from contending contra and putting forth the alleged defects which is an after thought. The allegation that representation was made that they could not deal with the permit as vehicle was not purchased through them is denied and false. The hardship pleaded by the complainant of taking the vehicle to Pondicherry is not an acceptable ground. The respondents-2 and 3 are authorised dealers and they are bound to rectify the defects since the authorised dealers are expected only to render satisfactory service for the motor vehicles as per the standards set up by the Company. The grievances in the complaint are not concern of this respondent. The delay in getting fitness certificate is not the fault of this respondent. There was no manufacturing defect. It is settled law that non-issue of reply is not fatal when it does not deserve any reply at all. The alleged expenses of Rs.15,425/- for the reasons stated in para-8 of the complaint is untenable and false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this respondent. Hence dismiss.

 

            4. The 3^rd and 4^th respondent remained exparte.

 

            5. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

 

 

            6. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P27. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            7. Points-1 & 2: The complaint is filed to get the amount incurred by the complainant for the repair of the Ambassador Nova Car bearing registration No. KL-8A/6996. The vehicle was purchased from the 3^rd respondent on 13.9.91 for an amount of Rs.2,12,600/-. According to him, some defects were noted before use. He stated that the body of the car was rattling, doors could not be closed properly due to rough finishing, want of alignment of wheels and shaking of suspension, steering etc. He also stated that the sheets on the body and doors were not properly welded, raw sheets are seen even without removing rust and body of the card was not properly welded with the chasis. He further stated that in order to rectify the above mentioned defects he approached the respondents-2 and 4 and there was no positive response and he was forced to get rectified the above defects of the vehicle temporarily at a private workshop. According to him, the expenses incurred to him was Rs.13,503/-.

 

            8. The alleged defects were rectified by the complainant in a private workshop is the case of complainant. According to him, he a person residing at Thrissur District, Kerala it was very difficult and expensive for him to take the vehicle to Pondichery Depot from where he was taken the delivery of the vehicle to rectify the defect of the same. It may be true. But nobody can blame by stating that it was very difficult and expensive to take the vehicle to Pondichery. He had taken delivery of the vehicle from 3^rd respondent at his own volition without the compulsion of any respondents. He being a resident at Thrissur he can very well take delivery of the vehicle from 4^th respondent. He has no case that such kind of vehicle was only available at 3^rd respondent. He has also not a case that he approached the 4^th respondent for taking delivery of this kind of vehicle and they expressed their inability or lack of vehicle available with them. He had taken the risk of purchasing the vehicle from Pondichery and it was his own duty to take the vehicle with them and nobody is liable to suffer the risk taken by him. If he was taken the vehicle to 3^rd respondent they would have rectified the defects because the alleged defects were in the warranty period. He is well aware that the manufacturer and 2^nd respondent are liable for the deficiency in service if any committed by them. So he sent registered lawyer notice to first and second respondents. In the counter the first respondent denied the acceptance of Ext. P5 lawyer notice. The complainant produced Ext. P5 notice and stated that he sent this kind of notice to first respondent. Since there is denial of acceptance it is the duty of the complainant to produce the postal receipt if any or other evidence. No such evidence is brought by the complainant. The 2^nd respondent stated in the counter that non-issue of reply was only because of non-deserving of reply to the letter. Thus they admitted the acceptance of registered lawyer notice.

 

            9. The contention of 2^nd respondent is that there was no manufacturing defect at all. So they did not even ready to accept the defects alleged by the complainant. They did not even state that if the vehicle was entrusted with them they would have been repaired it free of cost. Ext. P27 is the expert commission report. The alleged problems of the vehicle stated are body rattling, improper closing of doors and troubles of suspension, steering and wheel alignment. The commissioner reported that the complainant reported to him that the vehicle had these problems when he had purchased the new vehicle. But according to him he cannot ascertain these problems because at the time of inspection there was no such problems persist. The problems alleged were 10 years past and the date of inspection by commissioner was on 22.10.2001. At the same time the complainant produced some bills from private workshops and those documents are marked. All these were in the year 1991. The bills produced by the complainant are not disputed by the respondents. Only because of the difficulties in taking the vehicle to Pondichery he had made repairs in these workshops. The first respondent stated in the counter that if unskilled technicians were inspected the vehicle it will cause defect to the vehicle. They did not make arrangements to inspect the vehicle by an expert and to bring the true facts before the Forum. At the time of inspection of expert commissioner the representative of first respondent was present and no work memo is seen submitted by him. There is no objection to commission report seen filed by the respondents. About the body rattling and improper closing of doors the version of Commissioner is that he cannot ascertain the problems because there was no such problems at the time of inspection. The problems with regard to front suspension, steering and wheel alignment he reported that the parts found replaced. The approximate cost for replacement stated is Rs.15,000/-. Ext. P20 shows that for replacement of front suspension and steering etc. Rs.15,425/- will cost. There is no objection by the respondents with regard to the documents and commission report. The expert commissioner reported that the parts found replaced. The replacement as per Ext. P20 was in the year 1992. There is no other evidence with regard to the date of replacement. For examination of complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and it was later submitted by the Counsel for complainant that no oral evidence is necessary. So the complainant is entitled to get the expenses incurred for replacement. According to Ext. P27 the approximate amount will come to Rs.15,000/-. As per Ext. P20 the amount will come to Rs.15,425/-. So according to us he is entitled for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. He is not entitled for the other expenses incurred. It was his duty to take the vehicle to Pondicherry and get it repaired if any defects.

 

            10. As per the records there is no intimation about the defects to first respondent. In spite of lack of intimation the first respondent manufacturer is equally responsible towards the dealer. The respondents-1 to 3 are liable to pay the replacement charges and compensation to the complainant. The 4^th respondent is an unnecessary party and seen that only to file the complaint before this Forum the 4^th respondent is made as a party.

 

            11. The question of limitation and territorial jurisdiction were raised by respondents and found in favour of the complainant. So those aspects are not necessary to mention here.

 

            12. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents-1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand only) to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.