BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.339/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th November 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to replace the car or refund the value of the car as per invoice with 18% interest and Rs.2,000/- compensation per day from 21.05.2012 till the date of payment for inconvenience, harassment, mental agony caused and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased a car from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1.  The car covered with a guarantee of two years.  After the second service after running for about 4991 kms, the vehicle started pulling to the left side.  The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to rectify the defects.  On rectification of the defects, returned the vehicle to opposite party No.2 on 21.05.2012, with an assurance. But, the problem continued due to non-availability of spare parts, the complainant has forced to wait for two months.  The opposite party No.2 replaced the steering box assembly, still the problem persisted, hence, many of the spare parts have been changed, still the defects were not removed. Complainant caused a legal notice on 11.07.2013 calling upon to replace the vehicle, but in vain.  Hence, the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.    The opposite party No.1 filed its version, denying the allegations as false and baseless.  It contended that the vehicles manufactured by it were subjected to thorough check for its quality performance as per the standard set out.  As per the warranty conditions, it has carried out all kind of work satisfactorily.  As such, the complainant has played the vehicle for more than 25947 until 06.09.2013.  Thereby, opposite party No.1 averred that, the complainant is made only to make unlawful gain only and to bring down the reputation even though there is no deficiency in service and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.     Opposite party No.2 filed its version, denying the allegation as false.  It submits after receipt of the complaint, it got checked the vehicle, thereafter complainant received the vehicle.  The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 19.07.2012, 12.10.2012, 21.01.2013 and 03.05.2013 alleging various defects in the vehicle.  All the defects were satisfactorily rectified and delivered the vehicle.  In spite of the same, a legal notice was got issued by the complainant, the same has been replied with suitable explanations.  Hence, pleaded that there is no deficiency in service and it is not liable to pay any damages and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.    To establish the facts, the complainant filed his affidavit and relied on several documents.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit and relied on certain documents.  Written arguments filed by both side.  Heard the counsels and perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by opposite parties in not removing the defects found in the car and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased Maruthi XS4FRDCSI car from opposite party No.2 on 23.08.2011 for a consideration of Rs.8,05,484/-.  The car has guarantee for a trouble free service for two years from the date of purchase.  A month after the 2nd service done on 24.02.2012, the car started pulling left side, the same reported to opposite party No.2, on test drive conducted by the authorised executive had changed the steering assembly with other spare parts.  Even after the same, the problems continued in the car.  Thereby alleging manufacturing defects, the complainant filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
9.    The opposite party No.1 contended that the vehicle manufactured by it were subjected to a thorough quality, safety and emission checks.  It contends the vehicle delivered to the complainant was road worthy.  It alleged the rash and negligent driving has caused damage on the lefthand side of the vehicle. The defects were satisfactorily removed hence the complainant is using the vehicle.  The minor defects alleged were removed, as and when the vehicle submitted for periodical services.  Therefore denied the allegation of manufacturing defects in the car and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. The opposite party No.2 contended that, the allegations are baseless and made only to purchase a new car.  The car has been used by the complainant since 2011 to 2016.  As and when the complainant approached with defects, the same were satisfactorily rectified and after trial run and on satisfying with the removal of the alleged defects, the car was delivered.  Hence, denying the manufacturing defects in the car contends, it is not liable to make payment of any damages and complainant is not entitle for any reliefs claimed.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
11. On perusal of the material placed on record, and based on the expert report, the alleged defect of dragging of the vehicle to left free and stiffness to rotate the steering were confirmed.  Further, based on the job sheet and service records, the defect alleged in the vehicle were confirmed.
12. The complainant relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in SAS Motors Ltd., V/s H.S.Balakrishna in (I) 2015) CPJ 500 (NC), it is observed that, due to manufacturing defects the tractor was taken for repairs on number of occasions, considered as manufacturing defects, directed to refund the price with interest.
13. In view of the above, we opine that the opposite parties failed to removed the defects, evenafter several attempts, to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Further, the expert opinion also confirmed the alleged defects in the vehicle.  As such, the opposite parties are jointly and severally shall be liable to compensate the complainant and to pay the suitable damages for the negligence and deficiency in service.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.   
14. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to remove the defects in the car and deliver the same, in road worthy condition within 30 days of this order.

OR

The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall replace the vehicle with defect free new vehicle to the complainant within 45 days of this order.

OR

The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall pay the value of the vehicle (i.e. Rs.8,05,484.40) with 12% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of this order, to the complainant, within 45 days.

3. In default, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall pay penalty of Rs.500/- per day, to the complainant until compliance.
4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally, hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience caused and Rs.10,000/- damages for the deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant, within 45 days of this order.  Failing to comply, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally, pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, until payment made.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 11^th November 2016)