ORDER.

By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:

          This Consumer  Complaint is filed by Ajnas,  S/o.  Ali, Kalpetta, Wayanad   against M/S Eram Motors (P)  Ltd,  Feroke Calicut alleging  deficiency of service  on the part of the Opposite Party praying to issue orders to the Opposite Party to pay compensation and  other reliefs for the loss sustained to the Complainant.

          2. The Complainant states that he had purchased  the vehicle Mahindra XUV 500 FWD  W8 SLVR on  09.08.2017 having  Engine No. HJC4G85078 (2012 Model) which was in good condition and was  hypothecated to HDFC Bank, Kannur.   Complainant further states  that the vehicle was subjected to periodic maintenance.  On  16.08.2017  the Complainant produced the vehicle at Opposite Party’s service centre at Kakkavayal, Wayanad for service at 1,80,000 k.m.  According to  him there was some abnormal sound from the engine and the oil warning  lamp was glowing.  There was warming indication showing  “bonnet open”  in the meter.  The Opposite Party  serviced  the vehicle and informed the Complainant that the oil level was not low and sound  from the engine was due to intercooler hose  damage and replacement was suggested which was also done by the Complainant.  But  warning signal “bonnet open”  was still there.  But according the Complainant the subsequent developments and incidents shows that the vehicle was not properly repaired and the service rendered were below average and substandard.

          3. On 25.09.2017  while  the Complainant was on his way to Palani,  the engine of the vehicle got ceased and the vehicle was brought to the service centre as suggested by the customer care by spending Rs. 17,500/- .  In  the said service centre,  the advisor who attended  the vehicle demanded  Rs.2,500/-  for diagnosis.  When the Complainant contacted the Customer Care  Manager,  of the  Opposite Party, he arranged one Anand and he informed that the Tutor is  defective and the engine is to be dismantled.   He demanded  60% of the estimated cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The Complainant again contacted the  Customer Care Manager and as per his direction Rs.25,000/-  was paid on 03.10.2017.  It is stated by the Complainant that  Opposite Party had given an estimate on 09.10.2017  showing Rs.1,60,000/-.  According to the Complainant the  parts which were not defective is also seen changed as per the estimate.  Then  the  Complainant sent a mail to Mahindra customer care and on the next day  the  Customer Care Manager contacted  the Complainant and assured  discount  of  Rs.15,000/-  from  Mahindra Company and the area head  assured that the vehicle will be ready for delivery by 15.11.2017 but was delayed on flimsy reasons.  On 18.11.2017  the Complainant reached the Opposite Party’s work shop at Calicut and then it was found a crack in the windshield glass of the vehicle.  Immediately the Complainant contacted  the Manager,  then they apologized and assured the replacement.  According to the Complainant  any change in the  windshield,  would reduce the market  value  of the vehicle.  It is also stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Party issued  a bill showing  that  54 parts are replaced but they failed to provide the replaced parts to the Complainant.  By 8 pm the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on payment of Rs.1,27,921/-.  Then the Complainant found that the  R.C of the vehicle is missing  from the vehicle.  It is  stated by the Complainant when the vehicle reached the Ghat Section of Wayanad,  Complainant felt nostring and excess smoke and the same was reported to the Opposite Party and  the vehicle was taken to Kalpetta by the Complainant.  There was  abnormal sound and  low pulling to the  vehicle.  Next day the Opposite Party took the vehicle to the work shop from  the  house of the  Complainant.  It is stated in the complaint that  the vehicle had complaint on various occasions even thereafter but the vehicle was not properly repaired by the Opposite Party.  Thus there is deficiency  of service and hence the  complaint  praying for issuing  direction to the Opposite Party to repay the amount collected in excess   from  the Complainant, along with other reliefs.

          4. Upon  Notice  from the Commission  the Opposite Party appeared and filed  their version  denying all the allegations raised  by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party stated  that the statement of the Complainant that the date of purchase of the vehicle  as  09.08.2017 is false and the Complainant purchased the vehicle on 17.09.2012.  The vehicle was produced before  the Opposite Party on 16.08.2017 and the same was properly repaired by the Opposite Party.  The vehicle  was entrusted to the Kakkavayal workshop of Opposite Party only for washing and cleaning and for  change of inter cooler as there was problem regarding oil level,  which was done by the Opposite Party and returned  the vehicle on 18.08.2017 in  proper condition.  No other works were undertaken or demanded.  The vehicle was entrusted at Feroke workshop after  having  run 187595 km.  The previous visit of the vehicle was after running  a distance of 180382 km.  The vehicle having  run 7210 km within a period  of 38 days  itself shows  that the allegation is utter false hood.   There was no records  of the vehicle when it was brought to the work shop at  Feroke.  The customer had demanded washing and cleaning of the vehicle and complaint  of engine side sound while running, and engine getting off while running a distance of 250 km.  When  the vehicle was checked,  it  was found that the oil  pressure  was low and the engine lamp was glowing.  Since there was no records when the vehicle is brought to the workshop, suspecting that the persons who brought the vehicle were persons who took the vehicle on rent,  the person who was in charge of the work shop did not do any  repair.  The claim  of advance  amount etc stated in the complaint are denied.  The Opposite Party is not liable for the  amount alleged to be  paid for bringing  the vehicle to the workshop.  When the vehicle  was  thoroughly checked by the Opposite Party it was estimated that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-   was needed for repair.  The work  was not started since the Complainant declined when contacted.  The clutch  of the vehicle  was worn out and it is to be replaced.  On the request of the Complainant,  a discount of Rs.10,000/-   was offered.  The delay  was caused due to the major  engine work  and industrial  work.  As the Complainant was in a hurry he did not take the replaced spare parts with  him.  The final bill of Rs.1,27,922/-  was paid and the vehicle was taken delivery.  According to the  Opposite Party,  since the Complainant was not willing to replace the worned out clutch as directed by the Opposite Party,  the vehicle developed  problems  while climbing ghat sections of Kozhikode Wayanad road and the excessive usage of the worned out clutch had caused the alleged problem to the vehicle.  This was not due to the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The wind shield was damaged and the replacement of which was   promised  by the  Opposite  Party and still they are ready to replace it  if  the vehicle is brought to the Opposite Party’s place.  Opposite Party denied  the other allegations and they are not liable to  pay costs or other amounts to the Complainant  since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade  practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

          5. Oral evidence consists oral of testimonies of PW1 & PW2 from the side of the Complainant and Exts.A1 to A10 series were marked.  From the side of the  Opposite Party,  OPW1  was examined.

          6. The following are the points to be analised in this case.

1. Whether  the Complainant has proved  the deficiency of service or unfair   

    trade practice from the  side of the Opposite Party?

     2. If proved,  the quantum of compensation and other reliefs to be given to the

         Complainant.

3. Cost of proceedings.

7.  This Commission  has  made  a thorough verification into the over all  aspects

of the case with respect to the documents produced from  either side and on the basis of the facts submitted by both parties.  It is stated in the complaint that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle on 09.08.2017  which may be  the date on which he had purchased the vehicle in his name.  There is no mention as regards to the fact that he had purchased a  2^nd  hand vehicle.  But in cross examination of PW1 it is admitted that he had purchased the 2^nd hand,  2012 model vehicle from Nilambur in 2018 for Rs.8,75,000/-.  It is in evidence that the vehicle was given to the Opposite Party for service of 180000 km on 16.08.2017.  Ext.A1 also shows that the year of manufacture of the vehicle  is 2012.  Even though the Complainant had a case that an excess amount is received from the Complainant by the Opposite Party,  the Complainant had not made any effort to move the Commission to get the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to ascertain the works done  and the estimated costs of the repairs made in the vehicle  and whether the Opposite  Party  had carried out the necessary  works as stated by them.  None of the documents or the evidences submitted by the Complainant which brings out that the Opposite Party had caused deficiency  of service or unfair trade practice and therefore  point No.1  had not been fully established by the Complainant. 

          8. But  in this case  it is admitted  by the Opposite Party that they are ready to change the windshield of  the vehicle but according to the Complainant,  the vehicle is not  with him now and the same was taken possession by the  Bank.  With respect  to  the loss  of RC Book etc, there is absolutely no evidence to show that it is lost from the hands  of the Opposite Party. 

          9.  After considering the entire evidences in detail,  the following orders are issued.

1. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-  (Rupees Fifteen thousand Only) as the cost of the wind shield to the Complainant.
2. An amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as cost of the proceedings.

3. Opposite Party is directed to return the changed parts of the vehicle to the Complainant,  as and  when the Complainant approaches the Opposite Party at their premises with request. 

Needless to say that the above orders are to be complied with within one month

from the date of  receipt of  a copy of the order failing which the amount ordered vide (1) above shall attract interest of 6% from  the date of order till the date of realization. 

          Thus the complaint is partly allowed.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected   by   me   and  pronounced  in  the  Open  Commission on this the   18^th  day of May  2023.

          Date of filing:20.01.2018.

                                                                             PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Ajnas K. Ali                                      Business.

PW2.          Ajmal Ali.                                Engineer.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Sujeesh. P.K.                            Service Adviser,  Eram Motors,  Calicut.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.      Copy of Registration Particulars.

A2.      Receipt.                                           dt:18.11.2017.

A3.      Receipt.                                           dt:18.11.2017.

A4.      Manual Repair Order Form.             dt:25.09.2017.

A5.      RO Bill- Tax Invoice.                      dt:18.11.2017.

A6.      RO Bill-Tax Invoice.                                 dt:18.11.2017.

A7.       RO Pre-Invoice.                                        dt:25.09.2017.

A7(a)   Written statement of  Opposite Party.

A7(b)   Written statement.                                     dt:18.11.2017.

A8.      Receipt.                                          

A9.      Manual  Repair Order Form.                      dt:20.11.2017.

A10(a)   Copy of  Repair Order.                                     dt:25.09.2017.

A10(b)   Copy of   Repair Order.                           dt:25.09.2017

A10(c)   Copy of  Repair Order.                                     dt:25.09.2017.

A10(d)   Copy of  Repair Order.                                     dt:25.09.2017.

A10(e)   Copy of  Repair Order.                                     dt:25.09.2017.

A10(f)   Copy of  Repair Order.                                      dt:25.09.2017.

A10(g)    Copy of Satisfaction Note.                      dt:30.11.2017.

A10(h)    RO Bill- Tax Invoice (Duplicate Copy)           dt:30.11.2017.

A10(i)      Additional Cost & Time Approval Format.

A10(j)      Repair Order.

A10(k)   Copy of RO Bill                                               dt:16.08.2017.

A10(l)    Copy of RO Bill.                                    dt:16.08.2017.

A10(m)   Copy of RO Pre-Invoice.                       dt:16.08.2017.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                               MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                                              MEMBER    :  Sd/-