IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.118/2013 (Filed on 11.09.2013)
Between:
Samji Devid,
Ittikkathra,
K.P. Road,
Kayamkulam – 690 502. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Mahindra & Mahindra Company-
Ltd. 34/1128,
Balakrishnamenon Road,
Idappally, Kochi – 682 024.
(By Adv.Saji Mathew)
2. M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons,
Nanthiyath Building,
College Junction,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645. ….. Opposite parties
(By Adv. V. Krishna Menon)
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is the owner of a Bolero, ‘SLX MDI, TC 2WD BS 3’ vehicle, manufactured by 1st opposite party and the complainant purchased the said vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 06.01.2011. All periodical services were carried out regularly through the 2nd opposite party. While so, on 17.05.2012, when the complainant and his family were traveling to Coimbatore, the movement of its steering stopped at Agaly at Palakkad District at about 12.30 noon. Immediately complainant informed the matter to the 2nd opposite party, who told the complainant to contact their branch at Palakkad. Immediately the complainant contacted the Palakkad Branch and they advised to contact the Coimbatore automobile industries, who is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party at Coimbatore as Agaly is very near to the said dealer. Accordingly he contacted them and their breakdown service team reached at 4 p.m. They examined the vehicle and informed the complainant that the complaint is with the power steering unit and it is not repairable hence the complainant has to purchase a new unit. At that time, the complainant told that he is entitled to get it replaced, as the warranty is not expired. But they are not amenable for the same and told the complainant that the vehicle in question was not purchased from them and hence they cannot give the warranty benefit to the complainant and also told that he can claim the amount from the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, the complainant after intimating it to the 2nd opposite party and got the vehicle repaired by purchasing the power steering unit from them by paying an amount of Rs.29,200/-. Thereafter the complainant put his claim for Rs.29,200/- before the 2nd opposite party. But they have not cared to allow the complainant’s claim and told him to take up the matter with the 1st opposite party. So the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1st opposite party on 22.08.2012. But they have not allowed the complainant’s claim, though they have received the registered notice. The power steering unit of the complainant’s vehicle is an important part of the vehicle and it became defective within the warranty period and at 18376 km. It became defective due to its manufacturing defects. So the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the vehicle free of cost. But they failed to do so. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.29,200/- from the opposite parties, the amount spent by the complainant for replacing the power steering unit.
3. Opposite parties filed separate versions.
4. The main contention of the 1st opposite party is as follows: The 1st opposite party had no transactions with the complainant and therefore there is no privity of contract between them. As the transactions between the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is on principal to principal basis. It is learnt from the 2nd opposite party that the complainant had purchased a Bolero vehicle on 31.12.2010 and not on 06.01.2011 as claimed by the complainant. The 1st opposite party has no direct knowledge about the alleged incident occurred on 17.05.2012 and about the transactions between the 2nd opposite party or the Coimbatore dealer as alleged by the complainant. There is no merit in the allegation that the vehicle is within the period of warranty. The vehicle history has no record that the power steering system of the vehicle was defective or it was replaced. Further, the 1st opposite party is not liable for the replacement made by the complainant at an unauthorized service centre. The defects if any occurred in the power steering system is not due to any manufacturing defect and inferior quality. All model of vehicles was launched after getting the required certification as provided under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The subject vehicle is having standard warranty of 365 days from the date of sale and therefore the said vehicle is not within the warranty period as on 17.05.2012. The extended warranty for 24 months is applicable only to the engine and driveline of a new vehicle and the power steering do not come within the said conditions. The 1st opposite party is not in receipt of any notice from the complainant. Since the vehicle is out of warranty on the date of alleged claim, the answering opposite party is not liable to the complainant. The complainant has to prove the allegation that all periodical services were done through the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party had a branch office at Palakkad. The 1st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. This complaint is baseless and has filed on experimental basis for enriching unlawful gain to the complainant. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. The main contentions in the version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows: According to the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and hence this complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service from the 2nd opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that he was not provided the benefits of warranty for the repairs carried out on the vehicle by another dealer/authorized service centre of the manufacturer. The complainant has to prove that he had carried out the periodical services through the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party is not aware of the alleged incident or its repairs. The averments in the complaint itself discloses that the 2nd opposite party is not liable or responsible to the complainant. This complaint is without any merits and the allegations are baseless. There is no cause of action, either in whole or in part occurred within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The 2nd opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 series. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the power steering system of his vehicle become defective during its warranty period due to its manufacturing defect or due to its inferior quality. The said steering system was replaced by the complainant by paying Rs.29,200/- to an authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party at Coimbatore as per the instructions of the 2nd opposite party with an understanding to return the said amount to the complainant. But later, opposite parties denied the complainant’s claim for the same by saying that the replacement was made at an unauthorized workshop and the replacement was not in the warranty period and the replaced part is not covered under warranty conditions. According to the complainant, the objections raised by the opposite parties is not sustainable in view of the terms and conditions shown in the owners manual and hence the acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts.A1 to A4 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of the original invoice for Rs.6,17,600/- issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant at the time of the sale of the vehicle. Ext.A2 is the owners manual in respect of the vehicle in question issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2(a) is the terms and conditions of warranty shown in Ext.A2. Ext.A2(b) is the list of authorized dealers of the opposite party all over India shown in Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the invoice dated 17.05.2012 for Rs.29,200/- issued by CAI Industries Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore in the name of the complainant in respect of the sale and service of the power steering system. Ext.A4 is the copy of the notice dated 08.08.2012 issued by the complainant in the name of the 1st opposite party. Ext.A4(a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A4(b) is the postal acknowledgment card in respect of Ext.A4 notice.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complaint and replacement of the power steering system was after the warranty period and the said replacement was made not by an authorized dealer of the opposite parties and the power steering system is not covered under the warranty conditions. Further, they contended that they have no direct knowledge about the alleged incident occurred on 17.05.2012 and the alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect and the 1st opposite party never received any communication from the complainant in this regard. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
11. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they cross-examined the complainant based on their contention.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale of the vehicle. The only dispute is with regard to the defect of the power steering system and its replacement. According to the complainant, the power steering system of his vehicle became defective during warranty period and the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the power steering system to the complainant. But according to the opposite parties, the power steering system is not covered under the warranty conditions and the alleged replacement was not within the warranty period and the other alleged replacement was made in an unauthorized service centre and the defect is not a manufacturing defect. But on verifying Ext.A2(a), the vehicle is having normal warranty for 365 days and there is extended warranty for 24 months and it is also specifically stated in Ext.A2(a), the items which are excluded from the warranty in which power steering system is not included. As per Ext.A1 and A2, the sale of the vehicle in question is seen effected on the 1st week of January, 2011. As per Ext.A3, the replacement of the power steering system was on 17.05.2012. From the above, it is clear that the power steering system is covered under the warranty conditions and its defect was occurred on 17.05.2012 which is within the period of extended warranty given by the opposite parties. Further, as per Ext.A2(b) CAI Industries Ltd., Coimbatore where the repairs and replacement of the power steering system was made is an authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party. Thus the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had done the repairs by an unauthorized dealer is not sustainable. Further as per Ext.A4 series, it is clear that the complainant had intimated the matters to the 1st opposite party. So the contention that the 1st opposite party that they have not received any communication to the complainant also is not sustainable. Opposite parties also failed to prove that the alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect. Thus in all respects opposite parties failed to establish their case. Nobody is entitled to disallow the genuine claims of their customers by saying baseless reasons. Therefore, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant and hence we found that opposite parties have committed clear deficiency in service and hence they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, this complaint is allowable against the 2nd opposite party as they are responsible for the repairs and replacements as per Ext.A2(a).
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.29,200/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand and two hundred only) the amounts spent by the complainant as per Ext.A3 and its interest at the rate of 10% from the date of filing of this complaint, along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount from the 2nd opposite party with 12% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. However, the 2nd opposite party is at liberty to realize the said amount from the 1st opposite party if there had been any understanding or agreement between the 1st and 2nd opposite party in matters like this.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of January, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Samji David.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the original invoice for Rs.6,17,600/- issued by the opposite
parties in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Owners manual issued by the opposite parties.
A2(a) : Terms and conditions of warranty in Ext.A2.
A2(b) : List of authorized dealers of the opposite party all over India.
A3 : Invoice dated 17.05.2012 for Rs.29,200/- issued by CAI Industries
Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore in the name of the complainant.
A4 : Copy of the notice dated 08.08.2012 issued by the complainant in
the name of the 1st opposite party.
A4(a) : Postal receipt
A4(b) : Postal acknowledgment card.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Samji Devid, Ittikkathra, K.P. Road, Kayamkulam – 690 502. (2) Mahindra & Mahindra Company Ltd. 34/1128,
Balakrishnamenon Road, Idappally, Kochi – 682 024.
(3) M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons,
Nanthiyath Building, College Junction,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(4) The Stock File.
