DATE OF FILING : 08.04.2009 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.75/2009 Between Complainant : Mayavoo N.P, Tata Tea Limited, Munnar P.O, Pin 685 612, Idukki District. (By Adv:K.M.Sanu) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, R.F Motors, Thodupuzha. 2. The Manager, R.F Motors, Kochi. 3. The Manager, Tata Motors Limited, Kochi. (By Adv: Jose Thomas) 4. The Manager, Tata Motors Limited, Pulimoottil Buildings, M.G Road, Ernakulam. (By Adv: Jose Thomas) 5. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance, Housing Board Complex, Kattappana. (By Adv: Jose Thomas) O R D E R SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
This is a complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party. The grievances of the complainant in brief are as follows.
2.The complainant purchased a Tata Indigo car on 23.02.2007. He paid Rs.5,95,000/-. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 4th opposite party. The amount was repayable with interest in 60 equal instalments @ Rs.10,000/- per month. There was warranty of 18 months or 50,000 Kms whichever is earlier for the vehicle. The vehicle has offered more than 10 Kms per litre mileage. At the time of 1000 Kms service, the vehicle has started having complaints. At 2500 Kms the diesel tube of the vehicle broke and a full tank of fuel was lost. When the vehicle was stranded on the Munnar – Ernakulam road, it was taken for repairs by the opposite party only after 2 days. During the warranty period itself the vehicle has been stranded 6 times due to engine failure. All repairs were done with payment of repairing charges. The matter was intimated to the opposite party and demanded to replace his vehicle with a new one, but no remedial action were taken. In April 2008, they had issued a bill of Rs.60,000/- for repairing charges. The complainant refused to pay the amount, so the bill amount reduced to Rs.20,016/-. The engine injector had developed trouble many times during the warranty period. So the complainant could not remit the amount promptly and there was some default in payment of instalments. The complainant has sustained huge loss due to the complaint of the vehicle. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction to replace the car or return the purchase amount and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. In the written version filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant. The manufacturer's warranty is valid till 18 months or 50,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The complaint is barred by limitation because the vehicle covered more than 72,000 Kms and 2 years also completed. The complainant is engaged in the business of providing taxi services in Munnar under the name and style “Mahalakshmi Travels” and operates many vehicles by employing drivers. The vehicle is using for commercial purpose. The complainant's vehicle has been involved in accident twice and has not been serviced at authorized service centres. The vehicle had been involved in a front collusion, which had damaged the radiator assembly seen to have been renewed. The complainant has never serviced his vehicle by any authorized service centre after 5215 Kms. The vehicle was first brought to the opposite party's Ernakulam workshop on 27.3.2007 for the first free service at 5215 Kms. The complaints were rectified and necessary parts were replaced under warranty. On 29.3.2007, the complainant again reported for an accident repairs. Painting and replacement of damaged parts were done. Manufacturer's warranty does not cover accident repairs. The complainant never reported the self starting problem and the radiator hose brake problem. The complainant complained about coolant leakage on 4.09.2008 at 60458 Kms and it was replaced. The components were damaged only after the warranty period of the vehicle had expired and on account of the poor maintenance, rough usage over high range routes and also unauthorised servicing of the vehicle. The complainant has not approached the opposite party and he had never demanded to replace his vehicle or return of the purchase price from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
4. In the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, it is contented that the vehicle had purchased for commercial purpose and in order to expand his business. The opposite party never promised a mileage of 25 Km/litre. The complainant's vehicle has been involved in accidents twice and has not been serviced at the authorized centres. The complainant had never reported the starting problem and the radiator hose problem. The components were damaged only after the warranty period of the vehicle. The vehicle has no manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
5. In the written version filed by the 4th and 5th opposite parties, it is admitted that they availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant has been a regular defaulter in the payment of the instalments. The amount was repayable with interest in 60 equal instalments. The complainant could not avoid his liability towards the respondent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
6. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
7. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 (series) marked on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.
8. The POINT :- The transaction in question is admitted. The complainant as PW1 has admitted that the vehicle covered more than 78000 Kms and the warranty period, that is 18 months also completed. 9. Admittedly the accident took place twice. PW1 also admitted that his vehicle was serviced at Algappa workshop in Tamil Nadu. It is admitted in the complaint itself that there was some delay in remitting the instalments by the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of the complaint dated 19.01.2009 addressed to the Chairman of the Tata Group regarding the vehicle. Ext.P2(series) is the bills issued by the opposite party. It is also admitted by the complainant as PW1 that he had three other vehicles, at the time of purchasing the Tata Indigo car on 23.2.2007.
10. The 2nd opposite party as DW1 would swear that the manufacturer's warranty is valid for 18 months or 50,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The complainant's vehicle had covered more than 50,000 Kms, the warranty had expired. The complainant had never complained about the radiator hose during the warranty period of the vehicle. In the cross examination DW1 admitted that after warranty period, a bill of Rs.60,000/- was reduced to Rs.20,016/- by Tata Motors as the goodwill warranty. DW1 also stated that the vehicle is using for commercial purpose. The complainant did not raise any complaint against the opposite party about the mileage. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show this. So from the available evidence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010 Sd/- SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - N.P.Mayavoo On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - T.V.Nixon Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Copy of complaint dated 19.01.2009 addressed to the Chairman of the Tata Group Ext.P2(series) - Bills(4 Nos) issued by the Ist opposite party for repairs On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
| 
