SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OP’s to pay a total sum of Rs.9,46,414/- with interest @12% per annum  from the  date of  petition  till realisation , and to extend the warranty for an extra period of 75 days for the depreciation of the vehicle  enjoyment and cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade  practice on the part of OP’s.

The brief of the complaint :

   The complainant is the registered owner of Volvo car XC90 bearing registered No.PY01CP3500.  The complainant purchased the vehicle on 30/4/2017 for an amount of Rs.90,00,000/-. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the complainant has taken  an additional warranty plan for 3 years by paying  an amount of Rs.2,90,279/- apart from the  warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase itself.  So the complainant is entitled for a total warranty of 5 years.  The complainant was inducting the vehicle for periodic service for ensuring its smooth functioning.  On the destinated meter reading  of 70000 kms the complainant has given the car for the periodic service with the 1^st OP on 5/4/2021.  The complainant travelled from his business residence at Mangalore to Bangalore by spending an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards  diesel expense and reached Bangalore on 4/4/2021 and stayed in Hotel Oberoi to manage to give the vehicle on early morning to ensure delivery on the same day.  It is an advertisement of 1^st OP that they will render good service , the  complainant travelled around 300km to Bangalore to do the  periodical service while entrusting 1^st OP  informed that the vehicle will be ready for delivery on the same day and later in the  evening  declared that it will be ready after service on 6/4/2021.  On 6/4/2021 the 1^st OP informed that the vehicle will be ready on 7/4/2021.  Due to the sudden failure to handover delivery of the car the complainant was constrained to stay back in Bangalore for  7/4/2021 also.  The complainant was constrained to stay back at Bangalore till 4/4/2021 to 7/4/2021 at the Oberoi hotel for which the total charges   fell to Rs.28,958.80/-.  The complainant is a business man had the urgency to reach back on Mangalore.  On repeated request they provided a spare vehicle on 7/4/2021 and the complainant was forced to spent money for toll to reach Mangalore from Bangalore and also had to incur the fuel charges of Rs.6000/-.  Though the  1^st OP was legally   bound to  meet the expenses  the  toll fee Rs.850/-.  The complainant again came back to Bangalore from Mangalore on 11/4/2021 by spending an amount of Rs.6000/- and stayed this time in hotel Radisson Blue on expectation that the vehicle is ready after service.  The 1^st OP directed to make the payment of Rs.1,07,011/- towards service charges paid by the complainant through credit card.  The complainant was forced to make payment  even though the complainant’s vehicle is in extended  warranty period.  But after receiving the vehicle the encountered   a software issue.  Such a  software issue was never in the vehicle earlier and it was due to the unskilled handling  of the vehicle by the staff attached to 1^st OP while confronted the issue with the staff of 1^st OP they could not identify the issue and the complainant waiting for  5 hrs.  The complainant who booked the flight cancelled and he rebook another flight back to Mangalore  causing a loss of Rs.40,000/- by the complainant.  Then the complainant again stayed the Five star hotel on 11/4/2021 and 12/4/2021 by spending  an amount of Rs.6526.66/-.  Then the OP informed that the parts were received  on 24/4/2021 and the service bill on 10/4/2021 for Rs.79,310/-.  Later the 1^st OP informed to take delivery of the vehicle on 15/6/2021 and the  vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 16/6/2021.  The vehicle only delivered  after the expiry of  75 days.  The complainant lost the insurance amount, the warranty amount for 75 days, tax amount during 75 days and also had to pay 2% interest on the credit card bill.  The act of  OP’s,  the complainant caused much mental agony, stress and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

       After receiving notice  1^st OP appeared before the commission  and filed his written version . 2^nd OP not appeared before the commission and not filed version.  Hence 2^nd OP called absent and set exparte.  1^st OP contended that at the time of entrusting the vehicle the complainant had asked this OP to do the service touching each and every part of the vehicle, to get remedied, any defect which might  have  occurred while handling the vehicle by complainant.  The technical helpdesk suggested this OP to replace the IHU on 7/4/2021.  The same was communicated to the complainant via phone call and e-mail dtd. 7/4/2021.  The OP provided a  courtesy car on 7/4/2021.  The complainant had visited the service centre on 12/4/2021 for the delivery.  The bill payment was completed on 12/4/2021.  After the delivery of the vehicle  after a few kilometres he returned back to the service centre stating that the applications were not getting download to the system.  Since the unit replaced was a new one.  This OP was waiting a response from the technical help desk on  15/4/2021.  So the OP to replace the VCM on 21/4/2021.  This OP once again placed the order of the suggested part on the very same day  again on  high priority.  The car was taken to the  bay on 26/4/2021 and completed the work on very same day.  Unfortunately the government of Karnataka imposed a lockdown during the second wave of Covid 19 and had mailed him regarding the same.  The lockdown was extended until 14/6/2021.  The lockdown was for a  full 48 days, this was surely an unprecedented time.  The Dhakshina Karnataka where the complainant resides  were still under lockdown until 21/6/2021.  This OP had no choice but to risk our driver travelling to Dhakshina Karnataka to drop the complainant’s car as  complainant were not ready to wait for the lockdown to be lifted.  The car was delivered to  Mangalore also.  The new upgraded software was installed and the parts were replaced at  no cost to the customer the INR,107011/- was  charged to the complainant for the 70000 KMs service and wear and tear that had occurred.  So the OP was no way to compensate the complainant  for the unnecessary claim put forwad and the complainant is not at all entitled for any relief.  So the 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 consists of the oral testimony of PW1, the power of attorney holder and  Exts. A1 to A20 were marked .(Exts.A10 to 20 were objected  by OP). On OP’s side Exts.B1&B2 marked.  Ext.B1 objected by complainant. Both sides filed argument note also.

Issue No.1 to 3 taken together:   

     The  Complainant’s power of attorney holder  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. The documents Exts.A1 to  A20 produced on his  part  to substantiate his case also.  In the evidence of PW1 who clearly stated that “ പരാതിക്കാരന് മംഗലാപുരത്തും ദുബായിലും ആണ് ബിസിനസ്സ് .  ഞാൻ പരാതിക്കാരന്ർറെ friend  മാത്രം ആണ് ബിസിനസ്സ് പാർട്ണർ അല്ല.  മുക്താറിലോ അത് സ്വീകരിക്കാനുള്ള ഹരജിയിലോ സത്യവാങ്മൂലത്തിലോ , പരാതിക്കാരനും  നിങ്ങളും തമ്മിലുള്ള ബന്ധം പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല.  ഈ power of attorney നിങ്ങൾക്ക് execute ചെയ്തത് 25/11/22 തീയ്യതിക്കാണ്. എനിക്ക് ഈ കേസ്സുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ള നേരിട്ടറിവില്ല. പറഞ്ഞ് കേട്ടറിവാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ട് തന്നെ അവരുമായുള്ള ഇടപാടിനെക്കുറിച്ചോ മറ്റോ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് പറയാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല?. ഇല്ല .  As per the evidence of PW1 the power of attorney holder of the  complainant , he has no direct knowledge regarding the facts of the case.  So he is not a reliable person to give evidence on behalf of the complainant.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that  a power of attorney  cannot depose in a case where the principal alone can  have personal knowledge.  So the evidence of power of attorney holder cannot be take into consideration.

   Moreover,PW1 also deposed that കേസ്സിനാസ്പദമായ വാഹനം ഇപ്പോഴും പരാതിക്കരനാർറെ പേരിലാണ് എന്ന് കാണിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള RC കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയോ? അറിയില്ല. കേസ്സിനാസ്പദമായ വാഹനം ഇപ്പോൾ വില്പന നടത്തിയോ എന്നും അതിന്ർറെ RC owner Sreejith Babu, Puduchery എന്നവരാണ് എന്നും മറ്റുമുള്ള  കാര്യം എനിക്കറിയില്ല. But in OP’s side Exts.B1&B2 produced before the commission to prove that now the vehicle VolvoXC 90 D5 BSIV bearing Reg.No.PY01CP3500 belongs to the name of Sreejith Babu, S/o Purushothaman, C 21^st floor,Anbalaya Apartment Lakshmi Nagar, 1^st cross New Saram Pondichery and insurance details contained in Ext.B2.  So it is clear that the disputed vehicle is transferred to one Sreejith Babu and now he is the RC owner of the vehicle.  If the complainant has any objection for the Ext.B1, he would have produce his original RC .  But the complainant has not produce the same before the commission.   It is reported  in the Hon’ble National Commission Tata Motors Ltd Vs Hazoor Mahraj Bala Das Rajjichela Baba Dewa Singhi IV (2013) CPJ 444 NC.  The complainant had sold the vehicle during the pendency of the case and without the permission of the commission , the complainant is ceased to be a consumer  in that case.

   In the evidence of PW1 he also deposed that 1^st OP ന്ർറെ തകരാറ് കൊണ്ടാണ് കാറിന്ർറെ  തകരാറ് പരിഹരിക്കപ്പെടാതിരുന്നത് എന്നും, 1^st OP unskilled labours നെ ഉപയോഗിച്ചാണ് വാഹനം പരിശോധിച്ചത് എന്നും കാണിക്കുന്നതിന് നിങ്ങൾ വല്ല expert opinion  നും എടുത്തിരുന്നോ?  ഇല്ല.  So the complainant has not produced any document or expert evidence to prove that the software issue may come .  The delay caused due to Covid 19 pandemic, this OP could not deliver the vehicle for the next 48 days.  There is no latches, deliberate delay , deficiency  of  service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  In this  case the power of attorney holder has no direct knowledge regarding the facts of the case and  his evidence is not take into consideration and now one Sreejith  Babu is the RC owner of the alleged vehicle.  So the complainant is cease to be  a consumer in this case.  So the issue No.1 found in favour of the OP and  answered accordingly.

        As discussed above due to aforesaid deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s not proved by the complainant.  So the complainant is miserably failed to prove the case.   Thus  the issue No.2&3 are also found  against the complainant. 

          In the result the complaint is  dismissed.  No order as to cost and  compensation.

Exts:

A1-Tax  invoice dtd.10/4/21

A2-Worksheet(2 Nos.)

A3-Extended warranty certificate dtd.10/4/19

A4- Photocopy of cheque SBI Mangalore

A5- Email( 2 in Nos.)

A6-Photo copy of flight ticket

A7&A8- Invoice of Radisson  for Rs.3,737/-, 2729.66/-

A9- Invoice of Hotel Oberoi Bangalore

A10 to A20 Toll fee charges.

B1- Copy of RC

B2- copy of insurance details

PW1-M.P.Babu- P.A. Holder of  complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR