IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 30th day of January, 2017 Filed on 24.06.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.198/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Muraleedharan 1. The Manager, TVS Motor
Thamarapattu Company Ltd., P.O. Box No.4 Karuvatta Harita, Hosur – 635 109
South Alappuzha Tamil Nadu
(By Adv, Priya Nair)
2. Service Department, TVS Motor Company Ltd., Ambady Towers
Pookkattupady Road
Edappally – 682 024
(By Adv. Murukan – for opposite
parties 1 and 2)
3. Beevee Motors Haripad
Manager, Beevee Motors
Narakathara Junction
Haripad
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 1.12.2011 complainant purchased a TVS Star City Motor Cycle from the show room of the 3rd opposite party. After the 2nd service, complainant noticed vibration problem and after the 3rd service he noticed a noise from the back side of the vehicle. After the 3rd service, the mileage of the vehicle dropped from 65 km./L to 55 km./L. Thereafter he informed these defects to the 3rd opposite party and entrusted the vehicle to the servicing centre for repairing. They demanded him to pay money for repairing the defects. Even after repairing defects still existing. The vehicle manufactured by the opposite party had manufacturing defects and the condition of the vehicle worsened as a result of the poor quality of service offered by the 3rd opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
With regard to the allegations of the vibration problem and noise from the back side of the vehicle, the said problem is a minor one occurred due to the loosing of chain-sprocket and after adjustments of chain-sprocket the said noise problem was rectified. Mileage is a resultant of usage of vehicle. Mileage can be experienced only proper usage of vehicle and mileage is not a constant fact in a motor vehicle. The complainant has been taking the services from the authorized dealer on several days and expressed his satisfaction and took the vehicle for further use. If the vehicle is under the warranty, the complainant need not pay any amount for replacement of the defective parts and company will repair and replace the parts, if the parts of the vehicle prove to the satisfaction of the company to have a manufacturing defect. The allegations that the motor cycle manufactured by the opposite parties 1 and 2 had manufacturing defects and that the condition worsened as a result of the poor quality of service offered by the 3rd opposite party, are all false and concocted merely for the purpose of obtaining compensation wrongly from the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get refund of the vehicle’s cost along with the interest as claimed by him.
3. Complainant’s brother was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant dated 12.11.2011, Ext.A2 is the owner’s manual, Ext.A3 is the leaf-let, Ext.A4 series are the bills issued by the 3rd opposite party, Ext.A5 is the minor card dated 18.5.2013 and Ext.A6 is the letter of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the authorization letter, Ext.B2 is the ARAI certificate and Ext.B3 is the owner’s manual. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a TVS Star City motor bike from the 3rd opposite party on 12.11.2012. According to the complainant after the 2nd service he noticed some vibration problem and after the 3rd service the vehicle produced loud noise from the backside. Apart from that the mileage of the vehicle dropped from 65 k.m. to 55 km. So he informed these defects to the 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant, the 3rd opposite party demanded repairing charges during the warranty period. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version stating that the vibration problem and noise from the back side of the vehicle were minor problems due to the loosing of chain sprocket. After adjustments, the said problems were rectified by the 3rd opposite party. According to the opposite party the mileage drop depends on several external facts and manufacturer cannot be imputed for the same. The main allegation of the complainant is that even after repairing, the alleged defects still existing. On the basis of the application filed by the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed and he had filed commission report also. But complainant himself filed objection to the commission report and had taken steps to set aside the report. After hearing both sides this Forum passed an order in IA/No.109/2015 by setting aside the commission report. Thereafter another expert was appointed. The report of the expert commissioner marked as Ext.C1. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1. In the Ext.C1 report, he opined that, “ `the paint flaking in the front and rear wheel Rim is due to the defective powder coating and some serious manufacturing defects resulted in very low KMPL of the vehicle, smoke while ridding, high side pulling due to improper steering system function, rusting of cylinder and cylinder head cooling fins. So all these serious manufacturing defects discovered in the performance of the engine is against the promise made by the manufacturer. The improper periodical service by the service provider is also a reason for the defects found in the vehicle.” While cross examining the CW1 he admitted that he had continued the test drive from 12708km. to 12717.4 km. So it is clear that the vehicle had been in use by the complainant. It is also clear from the report that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 3rd opposite party for rectifying the defects within the warranty period. According to the opposite party they rectified the defects. But the expert commission report shows that the certain defects are still existing. Manufacturing defect is to be taken care of by the manufacturer only. Hence it is the bounden duty of both the manufacturer and the dealer to attend the complaints and make it a defect free one and if they are not in a position to do so they should either refund the cost of the vehicle or provide a new vehicle to the consumer. Whenever a brand new vehicle is sold to a consumer there is an implied contract that the vehicle being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity and standard which is repaired to be maintained. The interest of the consumer in the present case can be protected only if he is provided a vehicle which is free from defects from all angles and he is not subjected to the technicalities of proving whether any manufacturing defects exist or not.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to carry out the necessary repairs in the vehicle, make it a defect free and hand it over to the complainant along with Clear Cut Certificate signed by a Senior Officer of the manufacturer not below the rank of a General Manger declaring it in categorical terms that the vehicle is free from any defects. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th of January, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Radhakrishnan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant dated
12.11.2011
Ext.A2 - Owner’s manual
Ext.A3 - Leaf-let
Ext.A4 series - Bills issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ext.A5 - Minor card dated 18.5.2013
Ext.A6 - Letter of the complainant
CW1 - V.R. Ashok (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Jithin Babu A.H. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Authorization letter
Ext.B2 - ARAI certificate
Ext.B3 - Owner’s manual
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
