SRI.SAJEESH.K.P     :  MEMBER

          This complaint filed  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  for an order directing the  opposite parties to return the car as well as  to remit the value of the car with Rs.4,15,000/- and compensation.

    Brief of the  complaint as follows:  On 9/11/2013  the complainant purchased  Maruthi Wagonr  car from  2^nd OP by  complying all the formalities .  The complainant purchased  the car  on the basis of advertisement in the brochure.  From the month of July 2016 the complainant started to felt the  smell of petrol while driving the car.  Due to the  severe  adour, the car was taken to  authorized Maruti garage at Thalssery and found that there is a hole in the petrol  tank  due to rust.  After that the complainant took  another opinion from the technicians of Har car  they found another hole  in the petrol tank.  Complainant approached the 2^nd OP to replace the car with new one.  But the 2^nd Op  replaced the petrol tank and returned to the complainant.  The complainant alleges that the petrol tank is made of law grade material and without complying  the  quality  prescribed by the government.  The complainant wrote a letter, e-mail to 1^st OP regarding  the damage etc.  Further more, the  left side indicator and left side mirror  was broken by 2^nd OP while replacing  the petrol tank.  But Ops were not ready to replace the said damage since it is not caused  by the mishandling of  car as alleged.  Due to the damage caused to petrol tank the complainant  is approaching  dangerous situation of  causing fire.  Hence this complaint.

   The 1^st OP entered  appearance before the Commission and filed his version.  2ns Op not appeared  and not filed any version.  The 1^st Op contended that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice  from the side of 1^st Op.  The 1^st OP  discharged  there warranty obligations  and the complainant has never been denied by any  warranty benefit which he is rightly  entitled to .  According to  1^st OP the vehicle  in question has undergone  all the  checks before dispatching  it to 2^nd OP.  The 1^st OP has the obligation only with regard to  warranty and the  warranty for the said vehicle is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kilometer from date of purchase.  The vehicle-in question had purchased  in the year 2013  and the alleged defect of leakage of petrol tank caused in the year 2016.  The grievance of the complainant with regard to the fuel tank leakage was rectified free of cost under  extended warranty.  More over, the 1^st Op is contending that there were  many external reasons and environment factors which will cause the rusting of  metal like high humidity, sea air, road salts etc.  The complainant using the vehicle in coastal area were he resides  and  due to the negligent and  careless maintenance of the vehicle led to the defect.  So  the Op pleaded  dismiss the complaint since the latter approached the court with  unclear hands.  Due to the rival contention of both sides the following issues were framed for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  on the part of Ops
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought
3. Relief and cost.

        The complainant adduced evidence as PW1 and  documents on his side  marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and 1^st Op has not adduced any oral  evidence  and  the documents produced by  the 1^st Op were  marked as Exts.B1&B2.

  For the sake of convenience the issues No.1&2 taken together for consideration.  On perusal of the evidence adduced by PW1 , he categorically stated that  the car  has no defect till the  year 2016.  Thereafter, the complainant  found a leakage in the petrol tank and with regard to this  e- mail was sent to 1^st OP which is marked as Ext.A1.  Ext.A2 is the reply of 1^st OP that they are ready to rectify the defect  as demanded in Ext.A1.  He admitted that as per the complaint made by his  the alleged defect of leakage of  petrol tank was  rectified by the OP by replacing  with a new petrol tank and the  bill issued by the 2^nd OP marked as Ext.A3.  And he also  admitted that those parts which covers under the category of  replacement were replaced.  And  there is no such case that  there is no  replacement of  things which  comes under warranty.  In order to show  the standard of the quality  of material to be used for metallic fuel tank of automotive vehicles shown as Ext.A4.

   The allegation of the complainant regarding the quality  of the materials was stated only on his assumption not barred .  On any technical or expert’s opinion .  And he has  no case that the car  he purchased  was a duplicate one.  No expert opinion  was taken to show that the materials used to built fuel tank  is of under quality materials.  1^st OP produced the warranty policy  marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 is a dealership agreement which is subject  proof.  From all the oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that there  is no deficiency in service  since the complainant  got benefit of extended warranty to cure the defect as alleged by him through Ops service.  Under the above circumstances issue No.&2 is not found in favour of  complainant  and answered accordingly.

    Regarding issue No.3 relief and cost the complainant  is not entitled to any relief as stated in  complaint.  The  commission come in to the conclusion that since the complainant  failed to prove his case hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Exts.

A1-23/8/16- Copy of E-mail sent  to 1^st OP

A2- 3/9/16- copy of reply by 1^st OP

A3- Bill given by 2^nd OP

A4-Requirements of metallic fuel tank of automatic vehicles-guidelines

PW1-Pramodan-complainant

B1- warranty policy

B2-  Dealership agreement.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER                                           MEMBER

eva

                                                                                           /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT