O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that it is a firm of Advocates purchased an i10 Magana Model Motorcar manufactured by the first Op, from the 3rd Op, an authorized dealer. That they took delivery of the car on 19/04/2008. That 4th Op is an authorized dealer and service net work of the first Op. That he had paid Rs.4,52,000/- towards cost of the car and purchased it under an exchange scheme by exchanging his Santro Car with a new one. At the time of exchange purchase, 3rd Op offered an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. That the Ops had promised that the car would give 16.1 km per liter in the High way. That the vehicle after taking delivery could not be driven for 03 kms to go to a temple and found inherent manufacturing defect in it. Then he informed the 3rd Op to replace the car with another new one. The 3rd Op undertook to recheck the vehicle then he found that after taking delivery after such a checking he found that it was not running properly and its clutch was very rough and was not suitable for smooth driving. Then he got it checked thorough, the 4th Op who after attending told them to drive it home. But the clutch continued to be very hard and repeatedly told to the Ops that it was not set right. Therefore, they were not happy with the service. On 12/11/2008 at about 2.00 AM when a working partner was traveling in Tumkur District, it could not be driven and gave lot of problem and the same was brought to the notice of the Ops through helpline and was towed from Tumkur to Bangalore and they had to spend Rs.4,000/- for that purpose. Then the 4th Op replaced the clutch plate at the cost of Rs.5,000/- claiming to be not under warranty. Even thereafter, the clutch is not properly functioning then the vehicle which was given for repair on 12/11/2008 was delivered only on 21/11/2008 and that bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- is not paid and therefore calling the acts of the opponents as deficient has prayed for a direction to the Ops to replace the car in question with a new one, pay Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus and to award compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. In the alternative to pay entire sum paid by them towards the cost of the car and also to award compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh as third alternative or to direct the Op to inspect the vehicle by qualified technician and certify that vehicle is free from any defects and to pay the bonus amount and also to award compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh and to award costs.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate and have filed version contending that the complaint is not bona-fide. That car was repaired at the workshop of Op No.3 on 11/11/2008 after it had run for 14,630 Kms. On examination of the car it was found that clutch assembly was fully burnt due to extensive abuse which had to be replaced, necessary road tests were conducted and after driving it to perfect running condition was delivered to the complainant. So far as the non-payment of the bonus of Rs.10,000/- is concerned Ops admitting to had not paid bonus amount have contended that the complainant was told to produce the required documents like partnership deed within 120 days of the sale of the car but the complainant did not produce the same, therefore the payment of the bonus was rejected. Ops have further stated that the vehicle was subjected to free services at the workshop and was found not containing any manufacturing defects. That the clutch assembly was subject to wear and tear because of improper use is not covered under the warranty therefore was replaced by charging. The car was thoroughly examined was found that a sealed component rotar assembly in the alternator had failed, the same was replaced under the warranty free of cost and was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition. The Ops denying all other allegation and reiterating that there is no manufacturing defect in it have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complainant, the complainant and Op has filed their affidavit evidence. Complainant has produced copy of RC, copy of brochure issued by the Op, legal notice and copies of job card for having got the vehicle checked and replacement of the clutch. Ops have produced a copy of warranty policy and a job card copy. Heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the vehicle sold to him by Ops 1 to 3 in the exchange offer is having manufacturing defects and Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not replacing it with a new one and the 3rd Op not paying the bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: The claim of the complainant that it purchased i10 Magana Model Motorcar manufactured by the first Op in an exchange offer from the 3rd Op who is an authorized dealer on 19/04/2008 by paying Rs.4,52,000/- and he took delivery of the vehicle on the same day is not at in dispute. Further, the claim of the complainant that 3rd Op offered an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- to it and has failed to pay that amount and honour the commitment is also not in controversy but the 3rd Op has given reason for not paying the bonus amount which shall be considered later. The allegations of the complainant that the vehicle he purchased from 3rd Op manufactured by the first Op is having manufacturing defects is very vehemently denied by the opponents.<br /> <br /> The complainant without disclosing either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence has to when the vehicle started giving problem after it was taken delivery as in a casual way has stated that the car could not even be moved within 3 kms radius after it was taken delivery to even to go to a temple and alleged when it was got checked with the 3rd Op he told them to had repaired effectively and delivered it to the complainant assuring roadworthiness. The complainant has not at all stated after how many days or months it had happened and on which date he got it checked from the 3rd Op. The complainant nextly has stated that on 12/11/2008 a partner of the complainant took the car towards Tumkur there it got struck and gave trouble then it was towed from Tumkur to Bangalore by spending Rs.4,000/- and the 4th Op repaired it by replacing clutch plate by charging Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, it looks even according to the complainant card had given considerable problem as on 12/11/2008 i.e after about 7 months or so. Even these Ops have in their version and also in the affidavit evidence have stated that the complainant brought the car to the workshop on 11/11/2008 and by that time it had run 14,630 Kms and have further stated that the clutch was not properly operated, it was abused extensively and it had totally burnt. The complainant has not denied that the car had run 14,630 Kms by that time and the clutch plate was replaced. The further submission of Op that clutch assembly was fully burnt is not denied by the complainant. We should also bear in mind because of this reason the car had stopped totally at Tumkur either on 11/11/2008 or 12/12/2008 forcing it to be towed down to Bangalore. If these defects were to be there in the vehicle when it was delivered to the complainant from the show room it could not have been moved an inch. The fact that the vehicle was used to run 14,630 kms and the complainant having not produced any documents or given date on which they noticed the problem in the car would indicate that the car did not have any considerable problem or manufacturing defects till the clutch was replaced. Clutch was fully burnt is an indication of the fact that burning was due to mis-handling of the clutch or indiscriminate use of the clutch. Thereafter after replacement of the clutch assembly with a new one the complainant found to have had not made any specific complaint or took the vehicle to the Ops within a specific complaint. On perusal of the entire complainant allegations and affidavit evidence filed by them only disclose that the complainant faced clutch problem and nothing else. When that clutch was replaced with new one as stated by us above, the complainant has not brought to the notice of any of these Ops that the problem as in the clutch persisted.<br /> <br /> Ops have repeatedly stated in their version and also in the affidavit evidence that the vehicle was checked during all the free services and even thereafter and they did not find any manufacturing defects and it is in perfect condition and running well with this defense of the Ops, burden is on the complainant to prove any other defects in the car or any manufacturing defects in it. As stated supra, the complainant except alleging clutch problem he has not pointed out any other defects in it. Similarly after replacement of the clutch he has not brought to our notice of any such continued problem in the clutch assembly. Assuming that clutch problem is still persisted and in view of the contention of the Op the complainant could have exercised his right of getting the vehicle and clutch assembly checked through an expert and secure opinion to point out and to prove any manufacturing defect in it but has not chosen to do so. Therefore, one can not presume manufacturing defect in the car in the absence of proof. As the result, the grievance of the complainant loses it significance.<br /> <br /> Complainant has alleged that Ops had promised that the vehicle would give 16.1 Kms per liter of petrol in the highway but it has failed. Here again he has not produced any documents to prove that promise and has also not got the vehicle tested on road to prove whether that car give 16.1 kms per liter of petrol or not. Therefore even that allegation remains only an allegation and it is not proved. Then coming to the allegation of non-payment of exchange bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-, Op No.3 has admitted to had offered to pay that amount as exchange bonus amount. But contended that the complainant was required to produce certain documents including partnership deed within 120 days from the date of sale of car, but the complainant did not produce it as such their belated claim was rejected. The complainant’s has not denied the contention of the Op having not produced the partnership deed. It is not the contention of the complainant that 3rd Op had not imposed any condition of payment of bonus, Therefore, when the complainant failed to produce the document as sought for and when that contention of the Op is not controverted the complainant is not entitle for that exchange bonus. The complainant in our view therefore has not proved any deficiency of the Op and therefore we hold that complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 12th May 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />