By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one and to pay the Road Tax of Rs.21,000/- paid by the complainant or to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- being the price of vehicle and road tax and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a new Maruthi Wagon R LXI Vehicle from 2nd Opposite Party which is manufactured by 1st Opposite Party on 15.07.2012. The vehicle is numbered as KL 12G 9684. The company offered a mileage of 18.9 KM/Litre of petrol. Soon after purchase, the Complainant noticed some defects in the vehicle. As and when applying accelerator, rotating steering or starting AC all the lights of the vehicle are flickering. It cause much inconvenience to drive the vehicle in night and cause much strain to the eye of the driver. The vehicle is not having sufficient pick up and pulling. The vehicle is getting mileage of 14 Km / litre of petrol though the Opposite parties offered mileage of 18.9 km/ litre. After service, the Complainant was informed that the defects are cured. But after 1st service also, the complaint subsists. The Complainant again produced the vehicle for service and the service centre informed that there is complaint in accelerator and the alternator is replaced. But the Complaint again subsisted and the 1st Opposite Party informed that the very same problems exists in all Maruthi Wagon R LXI BSU model. Since it is a manufacturing defect, the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the vehicle. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1st Opposite Party, the 1st Opposite party stated that the Complainant executed a satisfaction note on 27.12.2012 at the time of obtaining services. Now the complaint is filed with ulterior motive. The allegations in the complaint do not constitute a consumer complaint. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1st Opposite party. In the version of 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties, the 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties stated that the allegations made by the complainant regarding the defects of the vehicle is absolutely false. On going through records, it is seen that after first service, on 08.08.2012, the vehicle is given for wheel alignment and wheel balancing and Accelerator complaint and it is attended and cured. All other allegations are denied by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties.
4. On perusal of the complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.C1 and X1 series are marked. 1st to 3rd Opposite parties not adduced any oral evidence and no documents marked from their side. Ext.A1 is the cash invoice. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report. The commissioner reported that there is slight light flickering and there is a slight difference in pulling in steep road. In Ext.X1 series, it is found that the Complainant reported the complaints of light flickering at the service centre. The complaint is filed on 11.07.2013. The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 15.07.2012. The Ext.A2 document shows that the vehicle plied 6000 kms during this period. So the Forum found that the complainant continuously used the vehicle. The Commissioner not reported any manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The Complainant not taken steps to prove any manufacturing defects. Since the complainant not proved manufacturing defect and the Complainant used the vehicle continuously for the last one year before filing complaint. The Complainant is not entitled for replace and otherwise not
entitled for refund of purchase price. The Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for proper repair of the vehicle according to the defects noted by the Commissioner. The Opposite Parties failed to give proper service to the vehicle and cure the defects. The Forum found that the failure to give proper service the vehicle is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to give proper service to the vehicle and also directed to cure the defect as noted by the Commissioner on production of vehicle to the 2nd Opposite party's service centre by the Complainant. The Complainant is directed to produce the vehicle to the 2nd Opposite party's service certre. The Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupee Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:11.07.2013
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Abijith Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Invoice.
A2. Copy of Letter.
A3. Copy of Letter.
A4. Copy of Counter Sale Retail Invoice. dt:13.07.2012.
C1. Commission Report. dt:10.02.2014.
X1 series. Copy of Demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheet (Job Slip).
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
