IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 17th day of November, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 192/2019 (Filed on 07-11-2019)
Petitioner : Vishnu Ramesh,
Umbukkattu House,
Arppokara East,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Raju Ambraham)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Mahindra and Mahindra Co. Ltd.
Gate Way Buildings,
Appollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400039
Rep. by its CEO.
(Adv. Saji Mathew, Adv. Denu Joseph,
Adv. George Itty and Adv. Bibin Babu)
(2) Mahnidra and Mahindra,
Financial Service Ltd.
4th Floor, Noel House,
Thrikkakara, Kakanadu,
Cochin, Rep. by its Manager.
(Adv. Dr. Rejimon V.T.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeeto minivan LXD, bearing engine number No.UEJ3F30802 on 28.06.2018 from T.V Sundaram Iyyengar and sons Pvt Ltd, Kottayam . The first opposite party is the manufacturer and second opposite party is the financier of the vehicle.
The complainant paid Rs.1 lakh as down payment and had availed a loan for an amount of Rs.245000/-.The monthly EMI for the said loan amount is Rs.8400/-. The vehicle has a warranty of 60,000 Kilometers. On 30.09.2019 while running the engine of the vehicle got damaged and the vehicle was stopped.
The complainant approached the authorized showroom at Thiruvalla for repair works. But they have informed that they can complete the repair works only after three months from the date of entrustment of the vehicle. The warranty of the vehicle can be availed only from the authorized showroom.
The second opposite party is the financier and the complainant had paid the monthly EMI without any default till September. Now the financier repeatedly asking the dues.
The engine of the vehicle was damaged only due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Taking three months for repairing the vehicle would cause much hardship, lose and injury to the complainant. The reasons for delay in repairing submitted by the service provider at Thiruvalla under warranty period are clearly deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant is entitled to replace the defective vehicle by the opposite
parties or to return the amount paid towards the vehicle with interest.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The second opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The first opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the
commission to defend their case. The first opposite party was set exparte.
The version of the second opposite party is that the complainant had availed a loan for the vehicle for an amount of Rs.287937/-.The loan is to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of Rs.8490/- on the first of every month. But the complainant committed willful default in repayment and to avoid the payment of loan this complaint is filed. The second opposite party is not aware of the condition of the vehicle. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service
alleged against the second opposite party in the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Exhibits A1 to A4.The second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 and B2.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the second opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
2 If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider points 1 and 2 together.
Points 1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeeto Minivan from the dealer TV Sundaram Iyyengar and Sons Private Limited,
Kottayam on 28.06.2018.The vehicle was registered in Number KL.05.AS.4536 on 12.07.2018 before RTO, Kottayam vide Ext A1.
The complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.287937/-vide Ext B1Loan agreement.The loan is to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with an EMI of Rs.8490/-.
While running on 30.09.2019, the engine of the vehicle got damaged and the vehicle stopped. The authorized dealer of the first opposite party at Kottayam had stopped functioning. The first opposite party failed to produce any evidence to show that they had arranged alternate arrangements for the existing customers
and the matter had been intimated to the customers including the complainant.
It is clear that the complainant was not able to use the vehicle for making his daily bread since the service of the vehicle was not done in time by the authorized dealer of the first opposite party at Kottayam. Moreover Ext.B1 warranty policy clearly states that warranty will not be provided if the repair work of the vehicle was done outside an authorized Mahindra service station. This had caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, the first opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for this mental agony and sufferings.
Even though the complainant alleged manufacturing defect for the vehicle no expert evidence is adduced to prove the manufacturing defect.
From the above findings it is evident that the act of the opposite parties in not intimating about the alternate arrangements made for the support of the existing customers including the complainant and not providing timely service to the vehicle of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
On the basis of the above discussed evidence the complaint is to be allowed. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
The first opposite party is directed to give Rs.50, 000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings to the complainant with cost Rs.3000/-.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of November
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of certificate of registration (KL05AS-4536)
A2 – Copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule
A3 – Copy of contract carriage permit No.P.Co.5/2239/2018
A4 – Copy of statement of account
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – True copy of loan agreement
B2 – Copy of statement of account
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
