Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

875/2009

P.Sathish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Managing Director& others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.L.Dhamodaran,m.V.Deenadhayalan

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   18.09.2009

                                                                        Date of Order :   01.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.875/2009

TUESDAY THIS  1^ST    DAY OF AUGUST 2017

P. Sathish Kumar,

No.83, 2^nd Street, MGR Nagar,

Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.                                     .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Mahindra Towers,

No.13, Worli Road,

Worli, Mumbai 400 018.

 

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,.

Rep. by its Zonal Manager,

Mahindra Towers,

1^st Floor, 17, 18 Patuldas Road,

Chennai 600 002.

 

3. MPL Automobile Agency Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

NO.48/7, Arcot Road,

Saligramam,

Chennai 600 116.

 

4. MPL Automobile Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Show Room Manager,

No.107/1, Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminijikarai, Chennai 600 029.                    .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant              :    M/s. L. Dhamodaran & others

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :   M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

Counsel for opposite parties 3 & 4 :   M/s. M.P.Mohandass & D.Yesa.

 

       

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,700/- towards repair  service charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  he purchased Mahindra Scropio VLX vehicle bearing registration No.TN 20 BZ 0995  on 30.7.2008 from 4^th opposite party.   Immediately after the purchase of the vehicle  within few week the gear shifting of the vehicle did not function properly.  The complainant brought to the notice to the 4^th opposite party;  the  4^th opposite party also deputed a technician one Mr. Rajesh to attend the said defect and duly set right the defects.   Thereafter the vehicle was brought to the 3^rd opposite party for 1^st service.   Even after the 1^st service the said defects continued and reported one Mr. Sathish, Service Manager to attend the fault and replace the gear box.   The complainant further state that on 4.11.2008 when he was driving the vehicle to Cheyyar the Gear box of the vehicle got totally strucked and the vehicle has not moved.   The complainant immediately put-off the engine and informed the same to the Service Manager Mr.Sathish  and the vehicle was taken to the garage on 5.11.2008 and was duly rectified the defects and replaced the gear box; since there was some technical snag.  On 9.4.2009 when the complainant went to Vellore to attend a family function and returned to Chennai at place near Chenji the complainant heard the beep sound and the light in the dash board blinked cautioning that the engine oil is getting drained.   Immediately the complainant put off the engine and stopped the vehicle and found the engine oil drained through a hole  and informed the same to Mr.Sathish, Service Manager of 3^rd opposite party and due instruction from the  Service Manager the complainant  pulled the vehicle to Saligramam garage to attend the fault.  The complainant further state that the  Work shop Manager informed that even after fixing of the sump, the engine in the vehicle develops noise and the same has to be attended, to attend the said fault the engine has to be opened.  

2.     The complainant further state that by letter dated 20.4.2009 he brought to the notice of the opposite parties 1 to 4 with regard to the defects in the vehicle purchased by him and also the negligence in attending the fault.   The opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance amount for  repair works in the car.    Accordingly the complainant issued lawyer notice dated 2.5.2009 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties gave a vague reply dated 5.5.2009 and made allegation as if the vehicle was met with an accident on the road track divider.   Finally the opposite parties informed the complainant on 17.8.2009 over phone that the vehicle was made ready and the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.64,700/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- paid earlier for delivering the vehicle.    The opposite parties have not furnished any details or reasons with regard to the additional claim of Rs.64,700/- which was paid by the complainant with protest and took delivery of the vehicle.    The complainant further state that the technician who attended the fault and informed the complainant on 17.4.2009 that the engine of the vehicle developed noise.   If the engine could be started and developed the noise, the question of seizing of engine will not arise.   In the case of seizing of engine, the question of development of noise will not arise.   The complainant also state that from 9.4.2009 till the date of delivery of vehicle on 22.8.2009 the complainant has not received any information except the reply dated 22.4.2009 to the letter dated 20.4.2009.    As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties    1 & 2 are as follows:

        The opposite parties deny all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite parties puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.   The opposite parties submit that on 9.4.2009 the vehicle was brought to the 3^rd opposite party by towing with the engine oil sump damage.  It was found that the engine oil was totally exhausted and the vehicle was driven even after the warning lamp glow indication in dash board.  Consequently due to engine oil leakage the engine has got seized.    It is pertinent to note that  the engine got seized due to negligence of the complainant in maintaining and not using the vehicle as per the directions of the manual and it cannot be attributed as a manufacturing defect.    The complainant ought to have ensured that proper engine oil has been provided in the engine as stated in the owner’s manual to get optimum performance of the car.    This opposite parties also state that the opposite parties have no control or executive power on the insurance policy of the car, it is pure agreement between the insured and the insurer.  Because of the damage made to the oil sump the oil has got leaked and subsequently damaging the engine.    The opposite parties further state that the complainant had paid the amount only for the repairs, replacement of parts and services rendered by the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party had given the detailed receipts for the said amount.   It is incorrect to state that the opposite parties have not furnished any details or reasons with regard to the additional claim of Rs.64,700/-.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties    3 & 4 are as follows:

        The opposite parties deny all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite parties puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.    The opposite parties state that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Scropio VLX  on 30.7.2008.  On 29.10.2008 the complainant brought the car for first service and after service, the vehicle was  delivered to the complainant on 4.11.2008, the complainant reported that the Gear shifting was hard.   The 3^rd opposite party attended the fault and rectified the defects.    On 9.4.2009 the complainant brought the car by towing to the workshop station with engine oil sump damage.  It was found that the complainant vehicle got damaged against the engine oil sump by some hard material on the road.   The opposite party also found that the engine oil got leaked and the vehicle had been driven even after the warning lamp showed the indication in the dash board.   Due to the leakage of the engine oil, the engine has got seized.   If the complainant had stopped the vehicle after the warning lamp glowing, the engine could have been saved from being seized.    The entire faults have occurred due to the complainant’s mistake and negligence.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

6.   The points for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,14,700/-

towards repair and service charges as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony caused due to deficiency of service as prayed for ?

 

7.      POINTS 1 & 2: -

 

          Admittedly the complainant purchased Mahindra Scropio VLX vehicle bearing registration No.TN 20 BZ 0995  on 30.7.2008 from 4^th opposite party.   Admittedly the vehicle having subsistence of warranty.   The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended in the written arguments that immediately after the purchase within few week the gear shifting of the vehicle did not function properly.  The complainant brought to the notice of the 4^th opposite party; the  4^th opposite party also deputed a technician one Mr.Rajesh to attend the said defect and duly set right the defects.   Thereafter the vehicle was brought to the 3^rd opposite party for 1^st service.   Even after the 1^st service the said defect continued and was reported to one Mr. Sathish, Service Manager to attend the fault and replace the gear box.  

 

8.     The complainant further contended that on 4.11.2008 when he was driving the vehicle to Cheyyar the Gear box of the vehicle got totally strucked and the vehicle has not moved.   The complainant immediately put-off the engine and informed the same to the Service Manager Mr.Sathish  and the vehicle was taken to the garage on 5.11.2008 and was duly rectified the defects and replaced the gear box; since there was some technical snag.  On 9.4.2009 when the complainant went to Vellore to attend a family function and  while returning to Chennai at place near Chenji the complainant heard the beep sound and the light in the dash board blinked cautioning that the engine oil is getting drained.  Immediately the complainant put off the engine and stopped the vehicle and found  that the engine oil drained through a hole  and informed the same to Mr.Sathish, Service Manager of 3^rd opposite party and on  instruction from the  Service Manager the complainant pulled the vehicle to Saligramam garage to attend the fault.  The complainant further contended that the technician of the garage instructed the complainant to make endorsement that the oil has drained.  Equally the complainant was compelled to give dismantling the engine also as per Ex.B2. 

9.     The opposite parties work manager demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance amount to start with the repair work.   After completion of all repair works the complainant was compelled to pay additional sum of Rs.64700/- and took delivery of the vehicle on 22.8.2009. The complainant further contended that he has purchased the vehicle only on 30.7.2008 for a sum of Rs.11,75,000/-within such a short period there was defect in oil sump gear box and internal parts of the engine were damaged due to the sub standard spare parts.  Further the complainant contended that he is a business man there is a need of vehicle, since the vehicle has manufacturing defects and the opposite parties  exercised deficiency of service he was compelled to travel in taxi on payment.  Due receipt Ex.A15 also filed in this case.  The complainant is claiming a sum of R.1,14,700/- towards the payment of repair charges and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.   But on a careful perusal of the complaint and the records will show that such sudden beep sound and blinking light in the dash board  while running the vehicle in Highway caused only due to the accident.  The complainant totally suppressed the manner of travel; manner of driving and mode of travel  and nature of road condition in this case.  

10.    The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle  Mahindra Scropio VLX on 30.7.2008.   The allegation of improper function of gear shifting is not a manufacturing defect.   During the warranty period after first free service the gear box also duly replaced.   The learned  counsel for the opposite parties further contended that on 9.4.2009 on the report of the complainant the vehicle was brought to the 3^rd opposite party by towing with engine oil sump damage.   On inspection it was found that the engine oil was totally exhausted and the vehicle was driven even after the warning lamp showed the indication in the dash board resulting the engine got seized.   The seizer of the engine is only due to the negligence of the complainant in maintaining and using the vehicle beyond the scope of manual of the opposite parties.  The complainant totally suppressed the fact under what circumstances the oil was drained and engine oil drained through a hole  and the necessity to drive the vehicle without engine oil.   The drying of oil from the sump shall be only due to the accident.   The sympatric things of blinking of light after the warning the vehicle ought to have been  stopped.  The complainant without any authority to drive the vehicle after due drain of oil from the sump till seize of engine establishes the negligent act of the  complainant.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that on inspection of the vehicle it was apparent that engine oil sump damage due to some external impact which amount of an accident.    Further it is also apparent from the inspection that beyond the scope of the manual the driving of the vehicle in a negligent manner after draining the engine oil till seize the vehicle resulting internal damage to the engine for which no warranty attached.    As per the terms and conditions of the warranty Clause 9 & 10 is as follows:

9.  Repairs required because of accident, misuse, abuse neglect are not    covered under warranty.

 

10.  Repairs accomplished with non genuine parts which in our judgment affected the reliability will not be covered under warranty. 

       

The complainant also has not added the insurance company as a party in this case.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief  in this complaint and the points 1 & 2 are  answered accordingly.

 

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

           Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  1^st  day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 30.7.2008  - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of vehicle registration.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Insurance papers.

Ex.A4- 20.4.2009  - Copy  of letter by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 22.4.2009  - Copy of reply by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A6- 2.5.2009    - Copy of lawyer notice.

Ex.A7- 5.5.2009    - Copy of reply by 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A8- 11.5.2009  - Copy of reply by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A9- 16.5.2009  - Copy of rejoinder.

Ex.A10- 17.6.2009         - Copy of telegram by the complainant.

Ex.A11- 19.6.2009         - Copy of telegram by the opposite parties.

Ex.A12- 29.6.2009         - Copy of letter and demand drafts.

Ex.A13- 28.7.2009         - Copy of renewal of Insurance.

Ex.A14- 20.8.2009         - Copy of letter with payment receipts.

Ex.A15- 16.5.2009         - Copy of Travel bills.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -  

Ex.B1-  30.7.2008 - Copy of invoice.

Ex.B2- 9.4.2009    - Copy  of Job card of the complainant’s vehicle.

Ex.B3- 20.4.2009  - Copy of complainant’s letter to 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.B4- 22.4.2009  - Copy of reply to the complainant’s letter.

Ex.B5- 2.5.2009    - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.B6- 5.5.2009    - Copy of reply to the legal notice.

Ex.B7- 16.5.2009  - Copy of rejoinder to opposite party.

Ex.B8- 29.6.2009  - Copy of letter from complainant along with payment.

Ex.B9- 29.6.2009  - Copy of receipt by 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.B10- 3.7.2009  - Copy of mail sent to Insurance company by

                               3^rd opposite party

Ex.B11- 7.7.2009  - Copy of reply by Insurance Company.

 

Ex.B12- 20.8.2009         - Copy of repairs & charges details by 3^rd opposite party.

 

Ex.B13- 20.8.2009         - Copy of letter from complainant for payment.

 

Ex.B14- 20.8.2009         - Copy of satisfactory voucher from complainant.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.