Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/204/2012

Tirumala Raju Appala Venkata Satya Siva Ramabhadra Varma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kantipudi Automobiles Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.N. Murthy

26 May 2015

ORDER

 Reg. of the Complaint: 06-07-2012

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:26-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.204/2012

 

BETWEEN:

Thirumala Raju Appala Venkata Satya Sivaramabhadra Varma,

s/o Narasimha Raju, Hindu, aged 54 years, r/at plot no.65,

Sai Nagar, Behind VUDA Phase-I, Ayyannapeta,Vizianagaram.

…Complainant

AND:

1.The Managing cum Authorised Signatory, M/s Kantipudi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its showroom at Site No.122/3, Besides Vikas college, Sheelanagar,

Visakhapatnam-530 012.

2.The Manager, M/s Kantipudi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Having its servicing centre at No.11, Special D Block, Opp.Nirman Park, 104 area, Industrial Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 008.

3.The Manager, M/s Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Having its office situated at No.37/38,  ASV Ramana Towers,  3^rd floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 06-04-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of      SRI D.N.MURTHY, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI C.SYAMA SUNDARA RAO, Advocate for the 1^ST & 2^nd Opposite Parties, and of SRI K.VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the 3^rd OP, is having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

ORDER

 (As per SRI C.V.RAO, the Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)                                                                               

1. The Complainant asked the forum to pass orders in his favour, and against the Opposite Parties:

1. direct the Opposite Parties to replace the Nissan Car with new one with same features and in case of failure to refund an amount of Rs.9,78,158/- together with interest @24% p.a., from 04-04-2012 to its realization.
2. direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards causing financial loss;
3. for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony;
4. for costs of the proceedings;
5. for such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The Opposite Parties 1, 2 & 3 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the he purchased the four wheeler vehicle i.e., Nissan Sunny DCI XL BSIV Diesel for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,78,158/- on 4-4-2012 from the 1^st OP and the consideration mentioned above includes the Life Tax, Insurance and other Governmental taxes and the 1^st OP provided the extended warranty in policy no.21204335470 by receiving further amount.  On 04-04-2012, the Andhra Transport Department gave a temporary registration bearing no.AP31UK T/R 9042 for the said vehicle and on 4-4-2012, the Future Genarali India,  Insurance Company gave an Insurance Policy bearng No.D3334602 DATED 04-04-2012 for the said vehicle and on 10-05-2012 whilie the car was in running, the indicator of the engine oil showed the red mark and as such he stopped the car at Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District and informed the same to the 2^nd OP at the direction of 1^st OP through its tollfree number and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP came to the said palce after 11 hours and found that there was a damage to the engine oil sump and as such the engile oil was leaked and as such the service personnel of the 2^nd OP lifted the car in their vehicle to the service centre at Industrial Estate, 104 area, Visakhapatnam and on that day i..e, 11-05-2012, the 2^nd OP mentioned in the veicle initial inspection sheet of the said vehicle”under body damage” and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP informed the complainant that they can deliver the vehicle within one week and all the expenses would be done out by the insurance company and the 2^nd OP failed to deliver the car as per promise within one week and instead they delivered the vehicle on 25-05-2012 by informing that all the problems were rectified and collected an amount of Rs.27,414/-  towards repair charges and at that time, the complainant availed the benefit from the insurance company and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP informed that in view of the under body damage, they checked every part of the vehicle and the vehicle was rectified in all the problems and the complainant submits that on the date of the delivery i..e, 25-05-2012, the complainant found that the vigil sounds are coming out of from the engine, while the vehicle was in running, at the same time, the indicator of the engine oil was indicating in red signal and as such the complainant informed the same to the service personnel fo the 2^nd OP and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP informed that the indicator signals are due to loose contact of the wires and the sounds are not abnormal and as such the complainant can proceed with the running and the complainants as per the advice of the service personal of the 2^nd OP used the vehicle and on 28-05-2012, the sounds from the engine etc., increased and the car was under service jerks and as such the complainant stopped the car at Zoo Park, Visakhapatam and the he informed the 2^nd OP about the stoppage of the vehicle with its abnormal sounds and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP came to the place and lifted the car in their vehicle to their authorized servicing centre and at present, the said car has been in the authoirsed centre of the 2^nd OP and the service personnel informed that the problem would be rectified within one week and on 10-06-2012 the service personnel informed that the engineers came from Chennai found that the engine of the car was freezed and as such the engine has to be replaced and the complainant was shocked to hear the same as the engine of the car was freezed within 1 ½ month from the date of purchase and that the NISSAN Company is a reputed company and by seeing its reputation, he purchased the vehicle and at present, the 2^nd OP is informing that an amount of Rs.3,93,205/- is the expenses for replacing the engine, which has to be borne out by the complainant and at present, the insurance company is unable to pay the said amount as the same is reflected in the 1^st servicing and hence there is a defect in the service provided by the 2^nd oP on 11-05-2012 to 25-05-2012, the defects were not rectified totally and without rectifying all the defects in the car, the service personnel of the 2^nd OP handed over the vehicle to the complainant and inspite of complainant’s information that the abnormal sounds from the engine and also the indication of engine oil indicator, the service personnel of the 2^nd OP did not take the said information into consideration and informed the complainant to use the vehicle and as such the problem reoccurred on 28-05-2012 and at present the 2^nd OP is informing that the engine of the car is freezed and as such the entire expenses has to be brone out by the complainant and if the 2^nd OP acted properly in rectifying all the deffects at the service provided on 11-05-2012 to  25-05-2012, the engine of the car can not be freezed and though he informed about the reoccurring of sounds from the engine and also indicators, even on 25-05-2012, still the service personnel of the 2^nd OP did not act properly. In view of the deficiency in service provided by the 2^nd OP, the complainant can not avail the benefit of insurance at present and he has been paying the installments to the State Bank of India, even though he is not using the car and there is manufacturing defect in the car and as such the engine of the vehicle is freezed within 2 months and the 2^nd OP who is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd OP has not properly extended the services even after receipt of hte mechanic  charges and the 1^st OP is liable to sell the defective goods after receipt of huge amount and the 3^rd OP has to use iron plates for the engine oil sump instead they used only aluminum plates for which there was damage to the engine oil sump and as such there is a manufacturing defect. Hence, this complaint.

4.       The complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim. Exhibits A1 to A9 are marked for the complainant.

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the complainant by contending, as can be seen from their written version,  that the booklet given to the customers clearly puts forth the entire scenario and the precautions to be taken by the owner/driver in such a case and  the service personnel  of the 2^nd OP did not advice the complainant to use the car with the sounds and lamp glow as stated in the complaint and the 2^nd OP stated that there were no sounds and the engine oil lamp was off after the completion of the reapirs, test ride and delivery to the complainant’s son and of the complaint’s allegation that the on 28-05-2012 the sounds from the engine increased and the car under severe jerks and as such the complainant stopped the car at Zoo Park, Visakhapatnam is hereby denied. The 2^nd OP on being informed by the complainant that his vehicle stopped, immediately, its service personnel attended the breakdown site and the service personnel of the 2^nd OP upon first inspection of the car noticed that engine was not cranking and the service personnel immediately opened the hood and inspected for any loose contact of the battery and on such inspection, it is noticed that there was no loose contact of the battery. On further probe as to why the engine was not cranking the service personnel noticed that there was no engine oil in the engine and it informed the complainant that the engine was dry and that there was no oil in the engine at that injunrue, the complainant advised the service personnel to take the car to the workshop and left the place by engaging a cab and the service personnel came back to the workshop, took engine oil back to the breakdown site, did a top up of engine oil and crancked the engine and even then, the engine did not even crank and  as such the vehicle was towed to the workshop and thereafter a through check of the engine was undertaken and upon inspection, it is noticed that the engine ceased due to running without oil and since the damage to the engine occurred due to improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant, the claim, if any, made to the insurer would not be accepted and as such it is informed to the complainant that it would be difficult for him to get the benefit of insurance for the replacement of the entire engine and this fact is informed to the complainant by the authorized representative of the insurer, but not by the first or the second opposite part. The allegation of the complainant that the 2^nd OP acted properly in rectifying all the defects at the service provided on 11-05-2012 to 25-05-2012, the engine cannot be freezed  is incorrect and the 2^nd OP bestowed utmost care and caution while undertaking repairs to the vehicle at the first instance.

6.       OPs 1 and 2 filed a proof affidavit and also written arguments to buttres their contention. Exhibits B1 to B6 are marked for the OPs 1 and 2.

7.       The 3^rd OP also strongly resisted the claim of the complainant by contending, as can be seen from its written version, that on 10-05-2012, the car hit a stone due to which the vehicle was damaged, this fact was suppressed by the complainant in his complaint and the contention that indicator of the engine oil showed the red mark and as such the complainant stopped the car is utterly false and the complainant approached this forum without clean hands and with dishonest intention to exhort money illegally from the OPs and after receiving the complaint, the independent agency towed the vehicle to the workshop of the 2^nd OP  and after that the 2^nd OP noted the visible exterior damages to the car and upon such verification, it is noticed that there were dents to the left side of the car and it found that the engine oil sump which is located in the bottom of the car was externally damaged and further there was damage to the underbody and the said checks were conducted in the presence of the complainant’s son, who accompanied the car to the workshop of the 2^nd OP and the complainant intimated the insurer of the vehile about the breakdown of the car and that the vehicle was kept in the work shop of the 2^nd OP for repairs. Regarding the breakdown of the car on 28-05-2012, the 3^rd OP stated that the 2^nd OP noticed that the engine ceased due to running without oil and  any vehicle should be driven with utmost care and within the parameters provided by the 3^rd OP Manufactuer and in the present complaint the complainant’s son drove the vehicle without proper care and not followed the instructions in the manual and it shows complainant’s own negligence for which the 3^rd OP is not liable to pay any damage or replacement of his used vehicle without any deficiency of service or manufacturing defect in the vehicle on the part of the 3^rd OP. The 3^rd OP also denies any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and stated that the complainant failed to specify what is the manufacturing defect and put to strict proof of the same. The allegations of the complainant that the engine of the vehicle is freezed within 2 months is not correct. The complainant used the car upto 5918 kilometers without any complainant  and the complainant raised objection only after the accident occurred on 10-05-2012 and after repair also used the vehicle to run upto 6240 kilomters and the car gave troubles due to improper of handling of complainant and due to accident only for which 3^rd OP is not liable. The 3^rd OP further contended that  the complainant used to hand over the car to his son  who is young and may not be able to take proper care of the vehicle. The 3^rd Op further stated that oil pressure, compression readings will not be covered under manufacturing warranty and further the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the prayer part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to render justice.

8.       The 3^rd OP filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support its contention. However, no documents are marked for the 3^rd Op.

9.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the comlainant as well as the OPs.

10.     After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that the complainant is blowing hot and cold at the same time. In para 8 of the complaint, the complainant says: “ The complainant submits that if the 2^nd Oppoiste Party acted properly in rectifying all the defects at the service provided on 11-05-2012 to 25-05-2012, the engine of the car cannot be freezed.” But in para 9, the complainant averred ; “The complainant submits that there is manufacturing defect in the car and as such the engine of the vehicle is freezed within 2 months.”  Both these averments are bare allegations totally unsubstantiated. In case of the first averment cum allegation of deficiency in service, the complainant has failed to present before this forum any expert opinion regarding the alleged defective service provided between 11-05-2012 and 25-05-2012 with clarification about what should have been the proper service. In case of the 2^nd averment, allegation of manufacturing defect, the Odometer reading of 6240kms clearly shows that there was no manufacturing defect. So, it can be rightly concluded that the damage to the engine occurred due to improper handling of the vehicle by the complaiant himself. In the circumstances, the claim of the complainant stands unsubstantiated and as a result, the complaint becomes liable to be dismissed.

11.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 26^th day of May, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainants:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	22-03-2012	Receipt issued by the 1st OP	Original
A-2	04-04-2012	Two Receipts issued by the 1st OP	Original
A-3	04-04-2012	Invoice issued by the 1st OP	Original
A-4	05-04-2012	Extended warranty certificate issued by the 1st OP	Original
A-5	04-04-2012	Temporary Registration Certificate issued by the RTA, Visakhapatnam	Original
A-6	04-04-2012	Insurance cover note issued by Future Generali India	Original
A-7	11-05-2012	Vehicle initial inspection sheet issued by the 2nd OP	Original
A-8	25-05-2012	Receipt of amount for the Bill issued by the 2nd Op	Original
A-9	13-06-2012	Estimation of costs for providing for the service for rectification of defects issued by the 2nd OP	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs     -nil-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B-1	10-05-2012	Vehicle condition Report Form/Job Card	Photostat copy
B-2	11-05-2012	Vehicle Initiation Inspection sheet	Original
B-3	11-05-2012	Repair order form	Original
B-4	25-05-2012	Service Feedback form	Original
B-5	07-06-2012	Repair Order Form	Original
B-6	30-05-2012	Vehicle Initial Inspection Shett	Original

 

Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER