Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/369/2017

T.V.Sundaram motors Rep by its manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maheswari - Opp.Party(s)

KR.Mahesh-applt

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 369 of 2017

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.24 of 2009 dated 21.06.2016 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Villupuram.

 

Friday, the 22^nd day of April 2022

 

1. M/s.T.V.Sundaram Motors

    Rep. by its Manager

    Sales Section

    Bye-Pass Road

    Poonamallee

    Chennai – 600 056.

 

2.  M/s.T.V.Sundaram Motors

     Rep. by its Manager

     Trichy Main Road

     Villupuram.                                                                                                            .. Appellants/1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties

 

- Vs –

1.  Ms. Maheshwari

     W/o. Govindasamy

     D. Edayar Village & Post

     Thirukovilur Taluk.                                                                                                            ..1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.  M/s. Ashok Leyland Motors

     Rep. by its Manager

     No.1, Sardar Patel Road

 Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.                                                                                     .. 2^nd Respondent/ 3^rd Opposite Party

   

    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite Parties         : M/s.K.R. Mahesh

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/ Complainant    : No representation

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party: M/s.K. Moorthy                           

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 17.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants /opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, in C.C. No.24 of 2009, allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent/ complainant herein. 

 

2.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant, 2^nd respondent is the 3^rd opposite party and the appellants are the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to, as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.    The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that on 19.09.2006, the complainant had purchased a Taurus model lorry, manufactured by Ashok Leyland, with Engine No.40965, Model No.2214/15 for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- from the opposite parties.  At the time of purchase of the lorry, warranty was given for a period of 18 months.  As per the warranty, if any damage is caused to the spares, the complainant can repair the same ‘on free of cost’ from any of the workshop belonging to the opposite parties.  Whileso, on 26.03.2007 when the complainant lorry was proceeding to Villupuram, it developed repairs.  Therefore, the driver approached the nearby workshop of the opposite party, where the clutch plate and some spare parts were changed.  Though in the warranty, it has been stated that if any repair occurs in the vehicle during the warranty period, they can take it to any of the branches of the opposite parties and the same would be repaired at free of cost, the complainant was charged a sum of Rs.4040/- for changing the clutch plate and towards replacement of minor spare parts.  Again on 27.05.2007, when the complainant’s lorry was proceeding near Hosur, due to some defect in the engine, the same resulted in breakdown of the vehicle.  Hence, when the driver of the lorry approached the nearby workshop of the opposite parties, he was informed that the clutch plate and some minor spare parts were damaged. Hence, the complainant had purchased the clutch plate and some spare parts from one Rajaram Automobiles for a sum of Rs.2347/- and some other spare parts for a sum of Rs.653/- to get the lorry repaired.  He spent a total sum of Rs.3040/- in the workshop for repairing the lorry on that day.  The complainant was not able to use the lorry for two days, on each occasion.  Therefore, he suffered loss of income to a tune of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant had spent more than Rs.7000/- for repairing the vehicle.  That apart, in the workshop the complainant was cheated by fixing substandard spare parts.  Thus, the opposite parties had indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice on 12.11.2007 to the opposite parties narrating the hardships undergone by him on 26.03.2007 and 27.05.2007.  But, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.43,080/- as compensation from the opposite parties.  The break-up details of the compensation is as follows :-

1. The payment collected from the complainant

by the workshop near Villupuram                          ..    Rs. 4,040.00

 

2.  Payment made by the complainant to the

          Workshop at Hosur                                                ..    Rs.  3,040.00

3.  Loss of income                                                  ..    Rs.10,000.00

4.  Cost for sending legal notice                                      ..    Rs.  1,000.00

5.  Compensation towards mental agony                         ..    Rs.25,000.00

                                                                                       ___________________

                                                Total                              ..    Rs.43,080.00

                                                                                        __________________

 

4.  The said case was resisted by the 2^nd opposite party filing a version stating that warranty was given in respect of the components for a different specific period.

Clutch facing                   ..  32,000 kms or 6 months(whichever is earlier)

Break lining                    ..  16,000 kms or 3 months      

Bearing                           ..  72,000 kms or 12 months

Engine, Gear Box, Crown..  1,50,000 kms or 18 months

 

According to the opposite parties, the date on which the clutch plate was broken was on 26.03.2007.  The 6 months warranty period given for the clutch plate had expired, by then.  Though the warranty period had expired, the cost of the clutch plate alone was charged and no labour charge was collected from the complainant.  The complainant had stated that on 27.05.2007 again the clutch plate was broken, which forced him to buy a clutch plate from the workshop at Hosur, but the opposite party is not liable to pay the cost of the clutch plate after the warranty period.  There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the claim, the complainant had filed 4 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4 along with proof affidavit.  On the side of the opposite parties, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have filed their proof affidavits but  no documents were filed.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum Rs.7080/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant for repairing the lorry,      Rs.5000/- towards loss of income, Rs.3000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses, totaling a sum of Rs.16,080/-.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.

 

7.  Keeping in mind the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, we have carefully gone through the material available on record.  No representation for the respondents. 

 

8.  It is the case of the complainant that 18 months warranty was given for the lorry.  As per the warranty, during the warranty period if any defect occurs in the lorry, the same can be rectified at free of cost by the opposite parties.  Whileso, on 26.03.2007 when the clutch plate was broken near Villupuram, he approached the workshop of the opposite parties where they collected Rs.4040/- for changing the clutch plate.  Thereafter on 27.05.2007, while he was going towards Hosur, again the clutch plate was broken.  He purchased a clutch plate and the same was fixed in a workshop where he was forced to bear the cost of the spare parts and pay the labour charges.  Therefore, according to the complainant, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in collecting the said amount during the warranty period.  But, on the other hand, it is the submission of the counsel for the opposite parties that warranty was given for each components for a different period.  So far as the clutch plate is concerned, warranty was given till the lorry runs 32,000 kms. or for a period of 6 months, whichever is earlier. The date on which the clutch plate was broken, 6 months warranty period was over.  In the workshop, they have collected only the price of the clutch plate and not the labour charges.  During the second time when the clutch plate was broken, there was no warranty.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

9.  The complainant also had not denied that the clutch plate has warranty only for 6 months.  Therefore, we cannot find any fault with the opposite parties in charging for the repair of the lorry.  In fact the main allegation of the complainant is that it was a manufacturing defect and the spare parts of the vehicle are not upto the quality. But he has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove the same.  The District Forum has come to the conclusion that the clutch plate was broken, due to the defect in the clutch cylinder.  But this finding is without any evidence.  In fact the complaint has been filed with vague and bald statement, without any tangible evidence.  But the District Forum, merely placing reliance on the receipts submitted by the complainant towards the purchase of the clutch plates, has awarded compensation.  When the complainant has failed to prove his case with proper evidence, the District Forum ought not to have allowed the complaint.    Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.                                                                                                               

 

10.   In the result, the order dated 21.06.2016 passed in C.C. No.24 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, is set aside.  Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                          R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022