Monday the 30^th  day of  January, 2012

 

in

between

Smt. Devi Ananthakrishnan                         1.         The Managing Director

“Ananthashaayi”                                                                 Ford India Private Limited

Pullikkanakku P.O.                                                 Block – 1B, 1^st Floor

Kayamkulam                                                                      RMZ Millenia Business Park

Alappuzha Dt.                                                                    143, Dr. MGR Road, Perungudi

(By Adv. R.Sreenivas)                                                        Chennai – 600 096

 

 

3.         M/s. Kairali Ford, 40/221                                 NH 47, Cochin Byepass

                         

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties.   They entered appearance and filed version.   In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. is a reputed automobile manufacturer, engaged in the manufacture of cars and denied the allegations of defects of the said vehicle. It is stated that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from the first opposite party, and stated that they had tested the vehicle thoroughly before they were brought for sale.   All the repairs were promptly attended and inspected and that there was no abnormal sounds or any defects. It is further stated that the complainant was ignorant on her part about the functioning of the break system, and the accident occurred as alleged was due to careless and reckless driving of the complainant.   She is not entitled to get any compensation. 

3.   In the version of the opposite parties 2 and 3, it is stated that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   It is stated that they are the authorized dealer and service centre of the first opposite party, and they had assured full service support with the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the manufacturer, and denied the allegations of break disorder from the very beginning of the use of the vehicle and denied the allegations of loud sounds,  jerks and disturbance.   It is stated that at the time of first service they had attended the defects pointed out by the complainant.   The 3^rd opposite party after effective the service, had delivered the said vehicle to the complainant and he endorsed full satisfaction of service in the job card.   They had carried out the service of the said vehicle, promptly and during the test drive, they found that the break is effective. It is further stated that the complainant was duly acknowledged the service and they were attended all service promptly, and that the cause of action shown is false and imaginary. 

4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:- 

3)      Whether the complainant isentitled to get any compensation and costs?

 

5. Issues 1 to 3:-   Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A5 – marked Ext.A1 series are the messages sent by the complainant to the Customer Care Cell of the opposite parties. Ext.A2 series are the copies of the insurance certificates of the said vehicle. Ext.A3 is the invoice of Kairali Fort, stating the details of the vehicle. Ext.A4 is the copy of the RC Book, in respect of the said vehicle. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgement card and postal receipts. Ext.A6 is the copy of the Advocate notice dt. 30.1.2010 requesting to settle the matter. Ext.A7 is the copy of the statement of a/c obtained from the Syndicate Bank, Kayamkulam regarding the loan availed by the complainant.  

6.   Opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, in support of their case. Commission Report marked as C1 – and examined the Commissioner as CW1. The report shows that he had inspected the vehicle on 29.1.2011 after witnessed by the complainant and opposite parties.   It is reported that it is straining hard to have an efficient breaking at speeds more than 65km.,and that the defects which hamper the general condition of the vehicle is, hard breaks, odd sounds in ABS ECM/ECU and side pulling towards left side.   The report further shows the details of parts either to be replaced or to be tested and corrected. 

7. We have carefully verified the whole matters involved in this case and perused the documents given in evidence and further verified the deposition of the CW1 – Commissioner. After the verification of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the said vehicle has the defects of the breaking system. Due to that defects of that,  the said vehicle met with an accident at Trivandrum. It is alleged that on every service of the said vehicle, the complainant had pointed out the defects of the breaking system of the said vehicle to the opposite parties.   But the opposite parties had not rectified the defects of the breaking system in an effective manner.   In this case, it is further noticed that the opposite parties have not shown any sincere attempt to rectify the defects of the breaking system in an effective way. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle for a huge amount of Rs.16,60,824/- from the 1^st opposite party through its dealer the 2^nd opposite party.   It is further alleged the vehicle has the complaint of break system, from the very beginning itself. The opposite parties have not shown any sincere attempt to cure the defects or its replacement.    The opposite parties have stated that they have conducted its services with proper care and after verification of the defects.   But the opposite parties have evaded from the liability of rectify the defects of the break system unit permanently in time, or its replacement with a new one. It is alleged that the 3^rd opposite party had  demanded Rs.37,000/- from the complainant, for its replacement of the unit even though the vehicle have the  warranty coverage. The commissioner after a detailed inspection of the said vehicle in the presence of the complainant and the opposite party,  filed a detailed report (Ext.C1) and it shows that defects are seen in the vehicle while at the time of inspection. He has reported that a thorough checking of break disc and break pad is required.    In this context, after verification of the entire facts and circumstance, we are of the view that the  allegations of the complainant regarding breaking system is to be treated as genuine. The contentions raised by the opposite parties cannot be accepted since it lacks  bonafides and have no merit. The opposite parties are fully liable for this and they are entitled to replace the whole ABS breaking system unit of the said vehicle of the complainant with a new one, free of cost. In this case, we are of the considered view that there is dereliction of duty, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties due to the purposeful refusal to replace the breaking system unit of the said vehicle in time, even though the complainant had pointed out the defects at the time of the service of the said vehicle. The whole action taken by the opposite parties are highly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. Hence, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and after verifying the commission report as a whole, we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. 

In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby ordered that the opposite parties are to replace the whole ABS breaking system unit of the said vehicle of the complainant with a new one and it should be free of cost to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and further direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant for her mental agony, pain, sufferings, physical strain, loss and inconvenience due to the dereliction of duty, culpable negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful refusal to replace the whole ABS breaking system unit for the said vehicle in time and committed inordinate delay to settle the grievances of the complainant regarding the defects of the breaking system of the said vehicle. Considering the nature and circumstances of this case, we are of the further view that the opposite parties shall pay a punitive costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant and we further ordered that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings.   We direct the opposite parties to comply with this order, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence of the complainanat:-

 

Ext.A1 series    -           Messages sent by the complainant to the Customer Care Cell   

Ext.A2 series    -           Copies of the insurance certificate of the said vehicle

Ext.A3             -           Invoice of  Kairaly Ford

Ext.A4             -           Copy of the RC Book

Ext.A5             -           Acknowledgement card and postal receipts

Ext.A6             -           Copy of the Advocate notice dt. 30.1.2010

Ext.A7             -           Copy of the statement of a/c

 

CW1                -           K.G.Gopakumar (Court Witness)

Ext.C1             -           Commission Report

 

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

 

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

 

 

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

 

Typed by:-pr/-            

Compared by:-