PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of November 2011
Filed on :30-09-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.520/2010
Between
E.V. Alias, : Complainant
Edayath house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Ayavana P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha
And
1. The Managing Director, : Opposite party
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (1st o.pBy Adv. By Adv. Saji Mathew,
Gateway Building, Jufin George Valooran, S.G. Chancery
Appollo Bunder, Chambers, 64/3147, Kalabhavan road,
Mumbai-400 039. Cochin-18)
2. M/s. T.V. Sundaram (2ndOPBy Adv. Uma Gopinath, Menon &
Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Menon, HRS Complex, Ist floor,
Post Box No. 1891, SRM road, Kochi-682 018)
National Highway, Kaloor,
Cochin-17.
3. M/s. MICO BOSCH ltd, (3rd O.P.absent)
MCM building, 38/232,
N.H. By pass, Palarivattom,
Kochi-24.
(O.P.3 impleaded as per order
in I.A. 208/11 dt. 05-04-2011)
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The following is the factual matrix:
Complainant entrusted his Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-17F-5445 to the 2nd opposite party on 27-08-2010 with the complainant of missing and low pulling power. The 2nd opposite party traced out the problem to fuel system, more specifically to the fuel injection pump. They advised him to replace the component. This occurred within the warranty period of 18 month, from the date of purchase, i.e. 29-05-2009, which date has been admitted by 1st opposite party. According to 2nd opposite party, they have noticed water entry in the entire fuel system including FIP, diesel filter, diesel lines and diesel tank. They changed the diesel filter and fuel lines as well as cleaned the diesel tank. The Fuel Injection pump was removed and forwarded to the authorized service centre of the said proprietary item. Viz M/s. Bosh Mico since the said component carried warranty for 18 months. But Bosh Mico, 3rd opposite party in the present complaint dismissed the claim under B1 warranty policy on the ground that the damage to the fuel pump was caused by the entry of water indicating rash and negligent driving.
2. It is the say of 1st opposite party that they have no liability to replace the component because they have no privity of contract with the complainants and their relationship with 2nd opposite party is of principal-principal basis. The argument looks attractive and tempting for acceptance but it is well known in legal circle that such a contention ends where warranty policy begins. Another limb of 1st opposite party’s contention is that they are not answerable for proprietary items such as fuel injection pump. They take refuge under B1 warranty policy more precisely on note 4 of the said booklet at page 17 and holds that the manufacturer of the said component Viz M/s. Bosch Mico alone could be held liable on manufacturing defect of the said component. There is force in the said contention and it has to be sustained.
3. 3rd opposite party, M/s. Bosch Mico has been abstaining from the proceedings. It is the 2nd opposite party who contends that the claim on the basis of warranty was rejected by 3rd opposite party on the ground of water entry into the fuel injection pump. No material is produced by 2nd opposite party to substantiate their contention that the claim was rejected on the ground of water entry. Since nothing is heard from 3rd opposite party coupled with lack of cogent materials to support such a contention, we are not inclined to accept such a contention. Admittedly the replacement was done within the warranty period. Moreover, 2nd opposite party has done so indicates that the replacement alone was the only way out open to them for rectification. In that view of the matter, we think the claim of the complainant has to be upheld and 3rd opposite party are accountable for the same.
3. Point No. ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think complainant deserves any compensation. Of course the amount allowed will carry interest from the date of this complaint. 3rd opposite party also will be liable to pay costs of this proceedings.
4. Resultantly, the complaint stands allowed as follows:
i. 3rd opposite party shall pay Rs. 12,848/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization.
ii. 3rd opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings in the Forum.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of November 2011
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
A1 : Copy of fax statement
A2 : Copy of fax statement dt. 03/09/2010
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 14/09/2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
B1 : Owners mannual
