Date of filing: 6.5.2012.

                                                                                        Date of disposal: 11.04.2014.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

 Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President

             Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L.,   Member

   Sri S. Sreeram, B.A., B.Com., B.L.,           Member

  Friday, the 11^th day of April, 2014

 C.C.No.106 of 2013

Between:

 P.V.N. Srinivas, S/o Radha Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Software Engineer, R/o.D.No.13/307, Jagannadha Puram, Patimeda, Gudivada, Krishan District.

                                                                                                                         ….. Complainant            

And

 1.  M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd., B-19, Ranjangaon, MIDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon – 412210, Taluka: Shirur, Dist: Pune, India.

 2.  M/s Tata Motors, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai – 400001.

3.  M/s Concorde Motors (India) Limited, 3^rd Floor, Babavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001.

 4.  M/s Concorde Motors (India) Limited, 9/8 Dairy Circle, Hosur Road, Opp: Christ College, Bangalore – 560029.

 5.  M/s Jasper Industries Pvt., Ltd., D.No.54-15-5, Srinivasa Nagar, Bank Colony, N.H.5,  Vijayawada – 520008.

 6.  M/s United India Pvt., Ltd., C/o M/s Global Administration Services Pvt., Ltd., Vatika  Triangle 5^th Floor, Sushant Lok – I, Block – A, M.G. Road, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.      

                                                                   . … Opposite Parties.

            This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 28.03.2014, in the presence of P. Mohan Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, Sri. B.V.S.R. Prasad, advocate for 5^th opposite party, opposite parties 1, 3, 4 and 6 are remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

 O R D E R

 (Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)

 1.         Owner of a Fiat Linea car filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties, the manufacturers, dealer and service provider to replace the defective car with brand new one with all accessories and on payment of all taxes, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, alternatively to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 12% p.a., to pay Rs.9,62,131/- with interest and to pay costs.

2.                     The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

             The complainant had purchased a Fiat Linea car on 30.4.2010 from the 4^th opposite party the dealer of the cars manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, for a sum of Rs.8,13,073/-.  The vehicle has 24 months warranty.  The 6^th opposite party had given extended warranty for another 26 months.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 3.5.2010.  On the same day the air conditioning system of the car failed.  The car was taken to 4^th opposite party on 4.5.2010 and the technicians attended to the problem and returned the vehicle.  Again within 30 days air conditioning system failed while in journey from Bangalore to Gudivada.  Some rattling sound was coming from the car.  The defects were reported to the opposite parties 4 and 5 the dealer and service center at Vijayawada.  They used to say that they attended to the problem.  The 4^th opposite party could not rectify the defect on the ground of non-availability of some spare parts readily.  The car has several defects viz; very tight gear shifting system, sounds from suspensions and wheels, uneven wear of four tyres, rust to main structure and all body parts and frequent warning induction for engine check.  The 2^nd service was done on 1.3.2011.  The defects were not rectified.  The 5^th opposite party stated that they will be attended in the 3^rd free servicing.  The complainant made complaints on 26.7.2011, 3.8.2011 and 30.8.2011.  There was no satisfactory reply.  Massive rusting was not rectified.  The car was given for 3^rd service on 6.3.2012 to the 4^th opposite party and it was kept there for 10 days.  They delivered the vehicle to the complainant without attending to the main defect of massive rust stating that the issue was referred to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The complainant had sent email to all the opposite parties on 16.3.2012 informing the real condition of the car.  There was no response.  The complainant had shown the vehicle to a licenced surveyor for expert opinion on 24.4.2012.  The expert opined that the car has manufacturing defect.  The complainant had handed over the car to the 5^th opposite party on 28.4.2012.  The complainant received an email from the 5^th opposite party on 29.5.2012 informing that the vehicle was ready for delivery after rectifying the defects.  The complainant stated that the manufacturing defect was not rectified and demanded for replacement of the vehicle with new one.  Later on 22.11.2012 the complainant came to know from his friends that the complainants car was thrown in a corner of the workshop and many important parts were removed and stolen.   The complainant brought that matter to the knowledge of the authorities of the 5^th opposite party.  The complainant got the vehicle photographed and a report was given to police station for necessary action.  The condition of the car was also shooted in a video.  The 5^th opposite party managed the press and police.  Thereafter the complainant informed the opposite parties 1 and 2 about the position and sought their involvement.  There was no response from the opposite parties till the date of filing of the complaint.   Therefore the present complaint is filed for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost and for compensation and other expenses.

 3.         The 2^nd opposite party filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint and further stating as follows;

             The 2^nd opposite party is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial and passenger vehicles.  The 3^rd opposite party has excellent workshop with a large network.  Every car manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party is thoroughly checked.  Whenever any car reports at workshop for service or repairs the workshop will provide necessary consultancy and advice.  The dealer and service points fully comply with warranties, assurances and specifications.  The relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is a relationship between principal to principal basis and the dealer is not the agent of manufacturer.  There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the complainant.  The complainant raised issues involving questions of fact and law which required evidence and trial and can be appropriately done by civil court.  This Forum has no jurisdiction.  The complainant purchased the vehicle on 30.4.2010.  Thereafter the vehicle was reported at the service station of 3^rd opposite party on 4.5.2010 at 77 Kms mileage reading.  The complaint was insufficient AC cooling.  The fault was determined and AC system was reiterated and AC gas refilling was done under warranty.  Thereafter the vehicle was brought for 1^st free servicing on 26.6.2010 to the 5^th opposite party at the mileage of 2,900 Kms.  There was no complaint.  Later the vehicle was brought to the 5^th opposite party on 12.4.2010 at the mileage reading of 3,891 Kms for running repairs complaining door lock problem.  The door lock was replaced under warranty.  Thereafter the vehicle was reported at the service station of 5^th opposite party on 1.3.2011 at mileage reading of 15,174 Kms.  It was for the schedule service and 2^nd free servicing was done.  Again the vehicle reported at the summer campaign on 2.5.2011 when the mileage reading was 18,312 Kms.  The complaints were unusual suspension noise and improper head light focusing.  The problems were attended to and parts were replaced and service was done on free service basis.  Front wheel alignment was checked and adjusted free of cost.  The complainant brought the vehicle later on 2.6.2011 when mileage reading was 18,791 complaining hard suspension, door noise on closing, fuel leakage, high tyre wear.  The front strut was disassembled and assembled and parts were replaced under warranty besides replacing fuel tank front strut, adjusting door striker on free of cost.  Thereafter the vehicle was reported at the service station on 29.7.2011 on mileage reading of 21,053 Kms for running repairs.  At that time the complaint was the paint peeling off.  Plastic component welding, repairs and painting were done free of cost.  Thereafter the vehicle reported at the service center on 5.11.2011 at mileage reading of 24,827 Kms.  The vehicle was brought for checking engine light and on the complaint of gear shift hard, tyre wear high and unusual suspension noise.  The complaints were attended to and parts were replaced under warranty.  Again the complainant reported the vehicle for 3^rd free schedule servicing on 9.3.2012 at mileage reading of 28,694 Kms.  The complaints were insufficient brakes, unusual suspension noise, hard steering system, door lock problem, door rattling, paint peeling off.  The 3^rd free servicing was done and parts were replaced and front wheel alignment was checked and adjusted.  Brake pads and door striker were replaced on payment basis.  Lastly the complainant’s vehicle reported at the service center on 30.4.2012  at the mileage reading of 30,304 Kms complaining unusual suspension noise, gear shifting hard, tyre wear high, noisy steering, hard clutch, insufficient brakes etc.  The complaints were attended to.  The opposite parties were prompt and swift to attend for grievances reported by the complainant under warranty to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant makes statement that the vehicle was manufacturing defect.  The warranty had expired on 30.4.2012.  The 1^st opposite party has given assurances to the complainant to repair the vehicle.  The complainant is reluctant and he is not ready for repairs or to take delivery of the vehicle.  The manufacturer’s warranty is limited to repairs and replacing of such parts free of cost if found defective.  The opposite parties had attended to satisfaction of the complainant under warranty as and when the vehicle reported at the service center.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

4.         The 5^th opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:

            The 5^th opposite party had rectified all the problems stated by the complainant. The facts are mentioned in the job card dated 1.3.2011.  On 28.4.2012 the complainant handed over the vehicle to the 5^th opposite party and the 5^th opposite party informed the complainant that the 5^th opposite party has no jurisdiction with regard to massive rust and not even a competent party to take decision.  The 5^th opposite party informed the same to Fiat company and all the problems cited by the complainant were rectified by the 5^th opposite party.  It was informed to the complainant through mail on 29.5.2012.  The complainant was asked to take back the vehicle.  The complainant did not take the vehicle.  The vehicle is kept in the workshop of the 5^th opposite party from 29.5.2012.  The 5^th opposite party kept the vehicle in good condition every time and started the vehicle as keeping the vehicle idle may lead to damage to the battery.  The complainant remained silent from 29.5.2012.  The present complaint is frivolous.  There is no defect in the service on the part of the 5^th opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief against 5^th opposite party.

5.         The complainant filed his affidavit and additional affidavit as deposition of PW.1.  General Manager of the 5^th opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW.1.  The Manager, Legal of the 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit as deposition of DW.2.  Exs.A1 to A15 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

6.         Heard the arguments advanced by all the parties.  The 2^nd opposite party filed written arguments.

 7.         The points that fall for determination are:

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 6?

1. hether the complainant is entitled the reliefs as claimed?

Points No.1 & 2:

8.         The complainant had purchased Fiat Lenia car on 30.4.2010 from the 4^th opposite party the branch of 3^rd opposite party who are dealers of the cars manufactured by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The vehicle has manufacturer’s warranty of 24 months and extended warranty of 26 months given by the 6^th opposite party.  Ex.A3 copy of extended warranty does not contain all the terms and conditions.  It is mentioned therein that the complainant had read and understood the terms and conditions of the policy and agreed to be bound by them. What are covered by extended warranty are not revealed by Ex.A3.  Unless the terms and conditions are attached it is not known what items are covered by extended warranty.  We cannot readily say that manufacturing defect is also covered by extended warranty.

9.         The defects pointed by the complainant are problem with AC system, gear shift system, sound from suspension and wheels, uneven wear of four tyres, rust of the main structure as well as body parts.  It appears that the 5^th opposite party had attended to almost all the services.  The AC problem was raised on the 1^st and 2^nd dates of taking the vehicle to the service center.  Thereafter that complaint was not raised.  Similarly the subsequent complaints were all said to have been rectified by the 5^th opposite party.  Ex.B2 filed by the opposite parties shows the details of repairs done under different job codes.  The date of this job card is 28.4.2012.  The complaints are noted as unusual suspension noise, hard gear shifting, high tyre wear on both sides, noisy steering, hard clutch and insufficient brakes.  The details show that each item was attended to.  Brake pads were replaced.  Leakages were rectified and other services have been done.  The estimated delivery bill was Rs.4,448.54 ps.  The estimated delivery date is noted as 30.3.2012.  Admittedly the complainant did not take the vehicle.  He admits in the complaint that the 5^th opposite party sent a mail informing the complainant that the vehicle was ready for delivery after attending to the defects.  The massive rust problem seems to have been not attended stating that it is the problem that can be rectified by the manufacturer and not the service center.  The 5^th opposite party had categorically stated in the version that the 5^th opposite party is no way concerned to the problem of massive rust and have no jurisdiction to answer the problem and that the said problem was in the hands of Fiat company.  Therefore the massive rust is the major problem which remained unrectified at the service center of the 5^th opposite party.  When it is a defect in the body itself the authorized service center could say that it is beyond the service. Normally painting is one of the items of service to be rendered by the service center.  But when a defect is said to be with the manufacturing company and not within the jurisdiction of authorized service center we can say conclusively that there is manufacturing defect i.e., un-repairable rusting of the structure and body parts of the vehicle.  This problem was not raised for the first time beyond expiry of manufacturer’s warranty.  Though the 5^th opposite party brought the job card dated 28.4.2012 the earlier job cards are not filed to show the complaint of formation of rust.

10.       The complainant has stated that rust was identified in the main structure and to all body parts of the vehicle in course of time.  It appears he noticed the rusting problem and complaints to the service center even prior to 3^rd free service on 6.3.2012.  The 4^th opposite party seem to have rendered service at Bangalore on 6.3.2012.  The 4^th opposite party did not file version.  The 2^nd opposite party had stated in the version that there was a complaint of paint peeling on 29.7.2011.  Again this was reiterated on 9.3.2012 at the time of 3^rd free schedule service.  Therefore the rust problem had arisen even before expiry of the warranty period and consequently it must be said that the manufacturing defect in the frame and parts of the body was detected even before the expiry of warranty period.

11.       The complainant has not produced the slips given to him at the time of servicing and the bills given to him to show whether other items of defects were fully rectified or not.  According to Ex.B2 the defects pointed at the time of giving for service on 28.4.2012 were said to have been rectified by the opposite parties.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant did not take return of the vehicle and he demanded replacement of the vehicle.  When the service center had rectified the defect and expressed inability to rectify the defects relating to massive rust and stating that it is in the domain of manufacturer and when the complainant has not taken return of the vehicle, we cannot say that the other defects are not rectified and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 5^th opposite party.  Therefore it must be held that there was manufacturing defect in the frame and body of the part of the vehicle which had become rusted as shown to the 5^th opposite party.  We do not find deficiency in service on the part of the 5^th opposite party who was rendering service.  When other job cards are not produced we cannot say if there is deficiency in service on the part of the 4^th opposite party.  Merely because the 4^th opposite party remained without contest we cannot attribute deficiency to him.  As observed above the question of extended warranty does not arise as the vehicle was lastly handed over to the opposite party on 28.4.2012 within two years from the date of the purchase.  The extended warranty has not commenced by then. Therefore no deficiency in service can be found on the part of the 6^th opposite party.

Point No.3:

12.       In view of the answer on points 1 and 2 and in view of our finding that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle to the extent of frame and body of the parts which has become rusted, the manufacturer is bound to replace all the defective parts which were subjected to massive rust.  Since the 5^th opposite party the authorized service center of the manufacturers had stated about this massive rust the manufacturer has to replace such parts which had become rusted.  We cannot order replacement of the entire vehicle merely because the frame had become rusted and particularly because of the complainant has used the vehicle for nearly two years and the vehicle covered about 30,000 Kms.  The complainant had some justification in not taking return the vehicle  because the 5^th opposite party as an authorized service center was representing the manufacturers on behalf of whom he was rendering service including free service.  The complainant made an allegation that some part of the vehicle were removed and stolen, we cannot say on this aspect unless the vehicle is thoroughly inspected by a technical person which is not done.  Since the vehicle is admittedly in the hands of the 5^th opposite party the missing parts can be verified at the time of taking delivery.  Therefore no relief need be given in that regard at this stage.  Since the 5^th opposite party said to have addressed the manufacturers regarding the problem of rusting and since the vehicle could not be taken delivery by the complainant with such defect, we feel that the complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation for deprivation enjoying the vehicle from 28.4.2012.  But we cannot lose site of the fact that the complainant did not move this Forum for more than one year after handing over the vehicle to the 5^th opposite party lastly.  This complaint was presented on 6.5.2013 nearly one year after receiving communication from the 5^th opposite party to take delivery of the vehicle.  Taking these factors into consideration a lumsum compensation may be allowed for the deprivation of the enjoying the vehicle.  We asses an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.  The complainant is also entitled costs assessed at Rs.3,000/-.

13.       In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace all the rusted and defective parts of the Fiat Linea car sold to the complainant and rectify all the defects in the car and deliver the car to the complainant in good condition within 30 days from the date of this order.  The 5^th opposite party shall continue to keep the vehicle as service center of the manufacturer till the replacement is done and vehicle is delivered as ordered above.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- toward costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  If the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to replace the defective parts and deliver the vehicle within the stipulated time the opposite parties 1 and 2 shall additionally pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the complainant from the stipulated date till compliance as regards delivery of the vehicle.  The compensation granted shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the stipulated date till realization.  The complaint for rest of the relief is dismissed.  The complaint against the opposite parties 3, 4 and 6 is dismissed.           

Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of April, 2014.

PRESIDENT                                                MEMBER                                          MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant:                                                         For the opposite party:

Smt P. Adilakshmi – PW.1                                                 Dr. Koneru Sridhar, OP-1.      

(by affidavit)                                                                          DW – 1, Lab Technician of OP.2                                                                                                             (by affidavits) & All the witnesses                                

                                                                                were subjected to cross-examine.                               

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:

Ex.A1             30.04.2010    Photocopy of tax invoice.

Ex.A2                                     Photocopy of warranty contents

Ex.A3                                     Photocopy of extended warranty copy.

Ex.A4                                     Photocopy of warranty and owner service policy.

Ex.A5 to A8                           Photocopies of mail copies

Ex.A9             26.04.2012    Photocopy of expert opinion report.

Ex.A10                                   CD and photocopy of mail

Ex.A11                                   Photocopy of mail

Ex.A12                                   Photos of car.

Ex.A13                                   Photos of car.

Ex.A14                                   Photocopy of private package policy.

Ex.A15           01.05.2014    Photocopy of statement of account.

On behalf of the opposite party: 

Ex.B1             26.05.2012    Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.

Ex.B2             28.04.2012    Original copy of job card – workshop copy.

                                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT