SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties  to refund  Rs.79005/- realized from him as repair charge of the vehicle and  to  pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- and  other cost to the complainant for  the deficiency of service on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

   The complainant  has purchased Maruti Ertiga ZDIB 5IV,  bearing No.KL-58-H-9666, chassis No.MA3FLEBIS 00129871 purchased  on 27/8/2012 from 2^nd OP which was manufactured  by OP.No.1.  The complainant states that the vehicle after running a few days of its  taking delivery was showing  a tendency of automatically  slowing down the speed and not picking up again.  This defect was reported at the time of servicing the vehicle at 20,000 kms, but the service centre could not find out the defect and rectify it.  At the time of servicing  of the  vehicle at 40,000km and 60,000 km the same defect prevailed in the vehicle and the service centre could not rectified.  The complainant further submits that at 90,000km also the same defect contained in the vehicle and the  service centre could not find out and remove the defect.  At last when the  engine of the car finally failed at 1,07,000 km the service centre of  2^nd OP got the vehicle and examined by expert on 26/6/2016.  The vehicle repaired in the present running condition, service centre of 2^nd OP charged Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and took more than a month to get the car in the present condition.  The complainant further submits that he has been repeatedly reporting the defect to the service centre in every servicing  of the vehicle that the speed of the  vehicle is automatically slowing down while  running  and not picking up again during the  warranty period itself from  20000 km stage onwards.  The complainant  had made 40 visits to the workshop of 2^nd OP.  The sudden slowing down and stopping  of the vehicle without  any indication, the vehicle was hit by another vehicle from behind and the  back bumper and right quarter panel  had to be changed on 17/1/2015. The subsequent visit of the complainant he reported existence of complaint of  automatically slowing of the speed of the  vehicle  while running but nothing was done till the 37^th visit to the workshop on 20/6/2016 when the  vehicle stopped running.  If complainant’s vehicle  had been  examined  timely by experts at the  initial stage of the complaint, the complainant would not  have  to pay a huge amount of Rs.79005/- as repair charge.  The Ops acted negligently in an irresponsible manner.  So  the complainant has got  mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency  of service  on the part of Ops.  Hence the complaint.

     After getting notice the Ops entered appearance before the commission and filed their written version separately.  1^st OP contended that the vehicle having been used  by him for a mileage of 1190.84 kms as on 17/10/2016 clearly as a settled principles of law and also as an  industry practice any vehicle having  travelled  such  huge mileage cannot be said to be suffering from any manufacturing defect.  The said  OP  gives warranty for a period of 24 months or 40000kms from the  date of purchase whichever  occurs first.  Moreover 1^st OP contended that no vehicle will be able to travel a mileage of  20,000 to 90,000 kms, if the same is suffering from manufacturing defect.  The vehicle in question has travelled a mileage of more than 119084 as  on 17/10/2016 thus  proving  the factum of the vehicle  being free not just  from manufacturing defect.  So 1^st OP is not liable  for any deficiency of service in this matter and not  entitled for any compensation from him.

   2^nd P contended that the complainant had availed free services and paid  services from this OP.2  on somany occasions.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after each free service and paid service with full satisfaction and endorsed the same in the  records. Moreover, 2^nd OP submit that on  20/6/2016 he received  a phone call informing that the vehicle is stopped while running.  Then the staff of the OP brought the vehicle to the  service centre and noted the defects in the  job card No.16004509 ie “ the engine of the  vehicle  has been  completely destroyed”.  This 2^nd OP submit that at this time the vehicle had passed 107000kms, the vehicle required major repairing work, spare parts required and approximate date of delivery and cost, etc to be explained to the complainant and he agreed for the same.  The total cost  incurred for repairing works, value of spare parts amounting to Rs.79005/-.  The complainant enquired  about each and every work done by this OP and he was fully satisfied with the repairing work, while delivering of the vehicle the complainant accorded his full satisfaction  for the work   carried out  this OP and  he issued a satisfying  note to OP also.  Moreover, the complainant has not raised any objection either for replacing  the old spare parts by new one or to the  repairing  work carried  out by the 2^nd OP. So there is no deficiency  of service  on the part of 2^nd OP and complaint may be dismissed.

On the  basis of the rival contentions by the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ?

3. Relief and cost?

      The   evidence on merits  of the  oral testimony of PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A5 documents.  On OP’s side DW1 was examined and no documents marked.

Issue No.1:

      The complainant  adduced evidence before the commission  by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu  of  his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined  as PW1 by OPs.  The documents Exts.A1 toA5 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  According to PW1 he clearly  deposed  that tIÊv sImSp¡p¶Xn\v ap¼v 1,19084 KM HmSnbncp¶p F¶p ]dªm  (D)icnbmWv. hml\ Ct¸mgpw HmSp¶p­v. manufacturing XIcmdmWv hml\¯n\v F¶v ImWn¡m³ expert opinion lmPcm¡nbn«pvt­m?  Ans: Cà .Major complaint 4 hÀj¯n\ptijamWv.  B kabw hml\w 107000 Km HmSn F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv. A¶v kÀÆokv skâvdn t]mbt¸mÄ hml\¯nsâ XIcmdv C¶XmWv F¶v ImWn¨v job card  D­m¡nbncp¶p? icnbmWv.. AXv Rm³ AwKoIcn¨Xn\ptijamWv OP service sN¿m³ XpS§nbXv. ]Wn XpS§nbXn\ptijw parts charge, labour charge, etc ImWn¨v _nÃv X¶n«p­v  F¶p ]dªm ?icnbmWv.  B bill XpI objection CÃmsX Rm³ AS¨ncp¶p.  B ]WamWv Xncn¨pIn«Wsa¶v Rm³ Bhiys¸Sp¶Xv.                  So it is clear that the  complainant has not raised any objection either for replacing the old  spare parts by new one or to the repairing work done by 2^nd OP.  So the prayer for repair charge of the vehicle Rs.  79005/- realized from him  and to refund  to the complainant is not maintainable.  But as per Ext.A5 in visit No.9 dtd.19/3/2013 stated the demanded repairs ie, break not effective.  Again on 28/5/2013 the visit No.11 the  vehicle had plied  on 20159kms  and noted  the demanded  repairs  ie, pickup low check pulling (vehicle not moving some time).  Then on  3/6/2013 visit No.15 and on 6/9/13 the visit No.16 the vehicle had plied on 28216kms noted the demanded repairs  check engine raising-checked vehicle pulling.  As per Ext.A5 document it is clear that the defect already noted by the  Ops. But they could not  cure  the defect at that  time.  In evidence DW1 stated that “ ]cmXn¡mcsâ hml\¯n\v   pulling Cà F¶ Imcyw ]n¶oSmWv Rm³ a\Ênem¡nbXv.”  The negligent act of the Ops the complainant caused much mental agony and hardship.   So there is  deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the  part of Ops.  Hence the  issue No.1 found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue Nos.2 & 3:

      As discussed above since there is deficiency of  service and  unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  The  complainant is entitled for  appropriate relief also.  Due to the  aforesaid  latches the complainant has suffered much  mental agony, hardship and loss.  That also has to be  compensated by the Ops.  We the commission  fixed the compensation  at Rs.25,000/- in a  moderate rate along with Rs.5000/- as the  cost of litigation.  Thus the  issue No.2 and 3 also answered accordingly.

       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- along with Rs.5000/- as litigation cost , within  30 days  of  receipt  of this order, failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- RC

A2- Lawyer notice

A3- Reply notice

A4- Warranty policy(series)- Photos

A5- printout of services(vehicle history)

PW1- Manojkumar.K- complainant

  Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                                 MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                      Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR