SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

   Complainant  filed this complaint  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  seeking to get an order directing  the Ops1&2 to replace the vehicle in dispute with brand new one  or Rs.2,00,000/- and  to pay  Rs.50,000/- towards compensation  for the mental agony and loss sustained to the complainant.

Brief facts of the case is that

   On January 2013 complainant had purchased a Ford Figo car   manufactured by 2^nd   OP from 4^th   OP. Since the vehicle was showing various kinds of faults for  which the vehicle taken to the Ops 3 to 5 for service on various occasions as directed by OP.No.1 since they are the authorized service centre of Ops 1&2.  The vehicle was under warranty, the faults were noticed within  a few months of its  purchase, so the Ops 1&2 are duty bound to rectify the defects and if not replace the vehicle.  The Ops 3 to 5 are authorized service centre did not show any serious attempt to solve the issues. The complainant was  constrained to take the vehicle to the Ops 3 to 5  from the month of June 2013 onwards on different dates.  Enough communications were sent to the Ops by email during these periods.  But still the vehicle is having the problems   ie foggy windshield, water dripping problems, noise from rear door, paint mismatch, Teflon coating without removing the stains.  During the rain, night driving  became impossible due to the foggy windshield.  The complainant informed the situation to the first OP and after examination they have also accepted the proposal to change the windshield but  reluctant to change it.  Water dripping problem and annoying noise  from the  car  was intimated to the Ops in the month of August 2013 and the vehicle was brought  before the Ops 3 to 5 for inspection repeatedly , but the problem still subsists. On 17/2/2014 the car met with an accident  so the complainant had to get the rear right door and quarter panel replaced, rear bumper was also repainted.  On delivering the vehicle, it was found that the rear right door, quarter panel, rear bumper and the  touch up on  front bumper had color mismatch.    On complaining regarding this many times, Ops 3 to 5 tried  to rectify  by applying some kind of polish  so that the color look the same throughout.  However after couple of water service, it was back to where it was.  Teflon coating was done by OP.NO.5 a week after bonnet was repainted.  However on getting the car back after Teflon, the complainant could find that the coating on bonnet was  done on top of stain, which looks like bird dropping .when complained  about this, they tried polishing it, which did not take care of the issue.   All the above instances caused mental strain,  and lost lot of money  to the complainant.  Ops 1&2 sold the vehicle saying the public that they have effective and efficient service throughout Kerala.  But the experience of the complainant is that none of the Ops are bothered to solve any of the issues brought  them properly. Hence this complaint.

     Opposite parties  1 & 2  jointly filed version  stating that the allegations made by the complainant are false  and frivolous as the same has been filed with ulterior motive to harass and defame  them.  The complainant has not made any allegations about  any manufacturing defect in the car, its only  the allegation  regarding non satisfactory technical support from the dealership concerned.  Ops further stated that  the complainant has miserably failed to establish in his complaint  that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent and manufacturing defect had persisted in  vehicle as neither any engineer’s report nor any other convincing material  had been filed before  the Forum.  Ops 1&2  had never forced or advised the complainant to get the vehicle in question repaired from its dealerships.  The complainant be put to strict proof thereof .  No mental strain  much less any and monetary loss  has ever occurred to the complainant because of this.  Ops 1&2 further  stated that  relationship between  1^st OP and  dealer is  purely on a principal to principal basis and each party is responsible  for its own actions and omissions.  The complainant never had any direct dealing with this  Ops and they had  already sold the car to its  dealer, 1^st OP as manufacturer is not liable to compensate  complainant.  Further stated that it is only in case of any manufacturing defects then they are required to meet its obligation as per the standard prescribed and  the allegation  of  manufacturing defect  may only be made against the dealer and not the manufacturer.  The vehicle in question was booked by the complainant with the dealer  and not this Ops. This OP sells the car to is dealerships who in turn sell the cars to the end consumers based on their own independent marketing initiative.  Hence there is no deficiency in service  on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

     4^th OP filed separate version that  he admitted the purchase of vehicle  and denied all the  allegations  raised by the complainant against  Ops 3 to 5 and about complaints  in foggy windshield, water dripping problems ,noise from rear doors , paint mismatch and Teflon coating without removing this stains and also submitted that this OP is not a necessary party in this case.  Since the prayer sought only against Ops 1&2, this OP is not liable to explain each and every thing  at this time.  Moreover, since there  is no specific allegations against  them not able to submit in such a way.  Hence prayed  for dismissal of  complaint against them.

   OP.No.5 also filed  version that they are unnecessary party to the proceedings.  It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant had been brought to the workshop of this OP only on  three occasions ie 21/6/2013,13/7/2014,18/2/2014. The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 21/6/2013 for certain accident repairs, the service personnel had attended to the said repairs.  They had removed the complaint of body panel dent and painted the  said portion as well as fixed new alloy wheels.  The affected body portions were refinished with new painting and a general touchup done for small defects noticed.  The damaged portions  were repainted  completely and touchup was done for the other portions as requested by the complainant.  On completion of the repairs the complainant had   taken delivery of the vehicle on 5/7/2013 after being convinced of the works done and expressing satisfaction over the same.  The vehicle then reported on 13/7/2013 after it had covered 9609kms for the 2^nd free service.  On completion of the service, the vehicle was delivered on 13/7/2013 itself.  On the said day neither had the complainant voiced any major complaint with the  vehicle nor  had the service personnel in the workshop of this OP  noticed any major  complaints with the vehicle.  Further on checking the windscreen, during raining time, the clarity of the glass was found to be normal and hence the complainant had been instructed in detail about adjusting the HVAC function to compensate the room temperature  and ambient  temperature while driving with AC on and in rain time.  The car had been water sprayed on top, underbody for detecting any  leaks and the same had been found t be in good condition.  The quarter panel outer and right hand side rear door were replaced and necessary accident repairs done along with painting and the car was delivered on 1/3/2014 and after being convinced  of the work done and expressing satisfaction over the same.  Hence this OP is in no way liable or responsible to compensate the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

   Here from the side of complainant, complainant , his son and  expert  commissioner RTO( Rtd) who filed Ext.C1 expert report were examined.  Exts.A1 to A10 were marked  on the side of complainant.

   After that complainant , Ops 1&2 were made oral argument before us.  We have examined the documents available before us ie Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.C1 expert report.

  The admitted fact that on January 2013 complainant had purchased the disputed  car  manufactured by 2^nd OP from 4^th   OP.  Allegation of complainant is that from the initial date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant , defects of  one  or another nature are arised in the vehicle . The defects alleged by the  complainant are that the wind shield of the car became  foggy, so night driving especially during rain , became impossible.  Complainant informed the said fact to 1^st OP and after examination, 1^st Op also accepted the proposal to  change the windshield but reluctant to change it.  Next problem is water dripping problem.   This problem was also informed to the  manufacturer of the vehicle  ,1^st OP.  Further annoying noise from the car.  This complaint was also informed to 1^st OP.  But Ops 1&2 are not bothered to rectify the same.  It is pleaded that complainant sent many email communications to 1^st OP but still the vehicle is having  the above said defects.  Another averment of complainant is that on 17/2/2014 the car met with an accident.  So the  rear right door  and quarter panel were replaced and rear bumber was also repaired by 5^th OP.  On delivering the vehicle , it was found that the rear right door, quarter panel, rear bumper and the  touch up on front bumper  had colour mismatch .  On complaining Ops 3&5 tried to rectify but  the defects existing .  Next allegation is  Teflon coating was done by 5^th OP, a week after bonnet was repainted, but coating on the bonnet was done  on top of stain.  The above said defects are alleged by the  complainant.  Contesting Ops denied the entire allegations of the complainant.  Complainant stated that he had took the vehicle to Ops 3 to 5 for rectifying the defects as per the  instruction of Ops 1&2 but the service centers of Ops 1&2 are not bothered to rectify the defects properly.  So according to complainant Ops 1&2 are responsible  for the defects arised in the vehicle and mental agony and lost  of money by took  the vehicle  each time to Ops 3to 5 .

    Complainant  tried to substantiate  his  allegations  through Exts.A1 to A10 and through Ext.C1 expert report.  Through repair order of 3^rd OP dtd.19/9/2014 complainant proved that there was complaint of rear dickey side  sound and  water entering  rear LH door upper side.  From the tax invoices produced  from the complainant’s side, it can be seen that Ops 3 to 5 have  tried to rectify and replaced the  defective  parts and  the complainant also has no allegation that Ops 3 to 5 did not try to rectify the defects pointed out by him.  Through Ext.C1 report  noise from  rear door  while  driving,  light  mismatch of the paint between the painted portion and the original untouched portion ie, front door and  corresponding  front mudguard and cowl, were proved.  Expert commissioner reported that  foggy windshield could not inspect because the inspection was conducted at day time and the said defect could  be verified only at night .  5^th OP stated that  on checking the windscreen during raining time the clarity  of the  glass was found to be normal and hence complainant had been  instructed in  detail about adjusting  the HVAC function to compensate the  room temperature and ambient temperature while  driving  with AC  on and in rain time.  To point out that foggy windshield and its  disability at night, there is nothing  on record to show that the vehicle is having such defect till  existing.

   Considering the facts and circumstances and particularly the expert  report by MVI (Retired), we are of the view that the vehicle is  having defect of water dripping problems, noise from rear door and paint mismatch.  Here complainant don’t have allegations of deficiency in service against Ops 3 to 5.  Complainant has no complaint about manufacturing defect of the vehicle on the mechanical side.  Here expert has not  opined that vehicle has any manufacturing defect.  Ops 1&2 contended that  relationship between  1^st OP and  dealer is  purely on a principal to principal basis and each party is responsible  for its own actions and omissions.  Further pleaded that since complainant never had any direct dealing with 1^st Op and they had  already sold the car to its  dealer, 1^st OP as manufacturer is not liable to compensate  complainant.  Further stated that it is only in case of any manufacturing defects then they are required to meet its obligation as per the standard prescribed.

   Here the expert has not opinioned that  the vehicle in question has manufacturing defect.  Though there is no material evidence of manufacturing defect  on the vehicle and as the  complainant  has no allegations against Ops 3 to 5 against their service, as  manufacturer Ops 1&2 are responsible to cure the defects proved as above, ie, water dripping problems, noise from rear door and paint mismatch.  Since there is no evidence regarding  manufacturing defect on the  mechanical portion of the disputed car, we are not inclined to direct manufacturer to replace the vehicle or direct to pay value of vehicle.  But Ops 1&2 are liable to compensate the complainant  for mental strain and monetary loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of them in giving strict directions to their  dealers to rectify the defects arised by their customers through e-mail communications many times.

   In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties 1&2 are directed to rectify the above found defects of the vehicle in question(Ford Figo having Reg.No.KL13Z6660) within one month after  receipt of this order, free of cost through their authorized service centre at Kannur.  Further opposite party No.4 is directed to make arrangement to rectify the defects of the vehicle with opposite parties No.1&2.  Opposite parties No.1&2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to complainant for mental agony and monitory loss caused to complainant.  The opposite parties  shall comply the  directions within one month  on receipt of this order.  Complainant is at liberty to  execute the order by filing execution  application  against opposite parties as per the provisions mentioned in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice issued by OP.4 dtd.22/2/13

A2- Tax invoice issued by OP.5 dtd.13/7/13

A3to A5,A7,A8- Tax invoice issued by OP.3  dtd.30/8/13,10/9/13,14/11/13,2/5/14,10/6/14

A6- Tax invoice issued by OP.5 dtd.1/3/14

A9-Rapir order

A10 series  -e mail communication copy(153Nos.)

C1- Expert report

PW1- P.K.Premarajan- complainant

PW2-Rakesh- witness of PW1

PW3-Haridasan.K.-Expert commissioner

  Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                 Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                          MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                              Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR