By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1. Case of the complainant: -
Complainant is the RC owner of KL-10/AW-4666 LMV, Goods Carriage vehicle. Complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party shop, who is an authorised dealer of the above vehicle. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, opposite party assured service extended warranty and complainant paid for the same.
2. On 01/11/2018, complainant entrusted the vehicle to opposite party for service and complainant paid Rs.48,299/- to them for service during the warranty period. When complainant questioning about this, opposite party provided a letter to complainant stating that the periodic services were not done at the company. Thereafter complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party, but they did not sent a reply to the notice. The act of opposite party caused a huge economic burden to complainant. Complainant had faced mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 48299/-, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the act of opposite party and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
5. In their version, they denied all the allegation and averments in the complaint except those which are expressly admitted. They again stated that the complaint is not maintainable and complaint is barred by law of limitation and the vehicle is used for commercial purpose. The warranty is offered by the manufacturer and the manufacturer is not a party in this proceedings. Hence complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
6. Opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased the goods vehicle from them and which was delivered after pre delivery inspection. The vehicle was having a warranty of 50000 km or one year which will come first. The warranty conditions are mentioned in detail in the owner’s manual. They again stated that they are only a dealer of the said manufacturer. The vehicle is manufactured by them and the maintenance network also is provided by the company. They are only provided the infrastructure set up and the service is done by the company trained mechanics. Everything is monitored by the manufacturer. They again stated that they are not having any power to deviate from the terms imposed by the company. Since the manufacturer is not made a party, the complaint is submitted with ulterior motive to suppress the agreed conditions between the complainant and the manufacturer.
7. Opposite party again stated that complainant opted for extended warranty on 16/10/2017 and the same is valid for two years or 50,001 to 1, 50,000 km whichever comes earlier and the same was offered by the manufacturer subject to warranty conditions. The warranty is not offered by this opposite party and complainant is very well known about that. As per the warranty conditions agreed between manufacturer and the complainant, he should avail periodic service as per the owner’s manual. The complainant should attend the service on completion of 5000 km 10000 km, 20000 km, 30000 km and so on. As per the agreed conditions to get the warranty benefits, the vehicle should be serviced in periodic succession. Certain specific work is to be performed during each interval and the same is shown in the owner’s manual. It is highly necessary to maintain required quality for the vehicle during each service and the replacement of parts is highly necessary.
8. The complainant was regularly attended the service up to 52,869 km. Thereafter the complainant not submitted the vehicle for regular service even after due intimation. From the records maintained by this opposite party it was informed that, the vehicle was leased out for commercial activity. The complainant informed that he is not interested for its service from the company. The vehicle is running for commercial purpose and they will maintain the vehicle with their resources. They again stated that complainant produced the vehicle on 28/09/2018 and on inspection the vehicle need service. The vehicle is covered 1, 21,353 km. In between the vehicle is not properly serviced and not attended any of the company service. The lock washer, Snap ring kit, Rep kit T/M, BLK Ring top, BLK ring low, Sleeve and hub assembly- top, needle bearings second and third, NDL BRG Low-REV, Needle bearing fifth, BRG Ball CTNR, BRG, Ball CTNR, BRG ANG, Ball cluster, Brg. REL, BRG, Radial Ball main SFT, BRG, Ball Main SFT. end, Return end, Return spring, gear box, etc is to be replaced and repaired. The amount payable was Rs. 24,635.23/- and Rs.4,863.94/-. This opposite party checked the vehicle history and found that after 50000 km service, the vehicle not attended any of the service before 1,21,353 km. If the vehicle was serviced in authorised outlet the vehicle details will be available. Opposite party before starting the service informed the complainant that the warranty will not available to the vehicle as per the warranty conditions. The manufacturer provided warranty on agreed conditions and the complainant ought to have serviced the vehicle during every 10,000 km. The complainant not done 60,000 km, 70,000 km, 80,000 km, 90,000 km, 100,000 km, 1,10,000 km warranty services.
9. They again stated that complainant admitted that vehicle is in bad shape due to poor maintenance and requested to repair the vehicle. He was ready to pay the repair charge and cost of spares. The vehicle suffered damage to engine parts, suspension etc due to poor maintenance. The vehicle was not worthy and after the repair the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on his satisfaction. It is a paid service and the same can be seen from the records. They again stated that the vehicle was produced for service on 01/11/2018 with mileage showing 123535. This time the complaint was with regard to AC compressor and pulley etc. same was repaired as paid service and the bill amount paid was Rs 15,809/- and Rs 1,491/-. Apart from this amount Rs 1,500/- was spent for other works. These repairs are not done under warranty and it is outside the warranty conditions. The complainant was informed the details and he stated that only because he leased out the vehicle, the service was not done in time. By the time the vehicle was returned, the vehicle is not in good condition and requested to do necessary repairs to restore the vehicle in running condition.
10. The manufacturer offers warranty service and extended warranty conditions to keep the vehicle road worthy. Periodic specific services and replacement of parts are necessary to keep the vehicle in serviceable condition. Complainant wilfully not
attended the regular service and not replaced and serviced the parts necessary for the good working of the vehicle. The lack of proper service and commercial activity caused the defects which are now repaired. The vehicle ought to have serviced under warranty on 01/11/2018 and Rs 48,299/- was collected etc are baseless. From the records, it is revealed that complainant violated the warranty conditions and he is bound to compensate the opposite party.
11. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4 series. Ext.A1 is the true copy of RC particulars of complainant’s vehicle, Ext.A2 is the original job card invoice given by opposite party to complainant, Ext.A3 is the original letter sent by opposite party to complainant and Ext. A4 series are the copies of lawyer notice, postal receipts and acknowledgement card. Thereafter opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents they produced were marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the true copy of extended warranty owner’s manual. Ext. B2 is the true copy of vehicle history card, Ext. B3 is the true copy of warranty and service schedule.
12. Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
- If so, Reliefs and cost.
13. Point No.1&2:-
The opposite party admitted the purchase of the vehicle, but they submitted that they are only dealers of the vehicle. It is also admitted that there is an extended warranty for the vehicle for 50,000 kms or 24 months /1,00,000 kms. But the opposite party denied the protection of extended warranty to the vehicle alleging violation of terms and conditions that the vehicle was not taken for periodic service regularly. But Ext. B2 produced by the opposite party shows the number of visits for the service of vehicle before the opposite party. Ext. B2 reveals the regular service for the vehicle commenced from 25/10/2016 to 16/10/2019. Thereafter some delay has occurred. The contention of the complaint is that the opposite party had not issued service manual at the time of delivery of the vehicle contenting that the vehicle should be undergone periodical service before the authorised service centre of the opposite party itself. Ext. A4 notice clearly has stated that while availing extended warranty terms and conditions were not provided to the complainant. The opposite party has not proved that the complainant was served with terms and conditions as claimed by the opposite party. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 which is an incomplete document and does not reveal the exact terms and conditions of the warranty. So the Commission is not able to arrive a conclusion that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. On the other side the opposite party admitted that there is extended warranty for the vehicle and the opposite party provided service on payment also. The perusal of the documents it can be seen that the opposite party realised the expenses from the complainant during the warranty period. The opposite party could not establish that the complainant violated the terms and conditions properly. Ext. B1 document reveals the regular service availed by the complainant for the vehicle from the authorised service Centre of the manufacturer itself. So we hold that complaint is entitled for the benefit of extended warranty.
14. The opposite party has got a case that they are only the dealer cum service provider and so there is no liability to comply the warranty conditions and the liability rest on the manufacturer alone. Since the complaint is defective for want of proper parties the opposite party cannot be made liable. The manufacturer is an essential party to redress the grievance of the complainant. But the opposite party admit that they are the dealer and also authorized service provider of the manufacturer. So it will not be proper to simply wash out hands stating the sole responsibility on manufacturer. Ext. A3 shows that the opposite party blindly denied the warranty coverage for the vehicle. The opposite party has not taken any steps to intimate the grievance of the complainant to the manufacturer while approached within the extended warranty coverage period, which was otherwise entitled by complainant. The amount received by opposite party as per the document produced before the Commission is Rs.46,854/- and not Rs.48,299/-. There is no averment in the Ext.A3 that the manufacturer alone is responsible for the compliance of warranty condition. So the act of the opposite party amounts unfair trade practice, which come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. So, what can be done is to refund the payment received from the complainant and allow the opposite party to claim the same from the manufacturer. The opposite party is permitted to claim the refunded payment from the manufacturer. The Commission also finds that due to unfair and deficient nature of service on the part of the opposite party, complainant suffered inconveniences and hardships and so the complainant is entitled an amount of Rs. 10,000/-as compensation. We also allow Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings. In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 46,854/-(Rupees Forty six thousand eight hundred and fifty four only) which received from the complainant by the opposite party towards the service cost during the extended warranty period.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 28thday of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: True copy of RC particulars of complainant’s vehicle.
Ext.A2: Original job card invoice given by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3: Original letter sent by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A4: Series are the copy of lawyer notice, postal receipts and acknowledgment
card.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1 : True copy of extended warranty owner’s manual.
Ext.B2 : True copy of vehicle history card.
Ext. B3 : True copy of warranty and service schedule.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
