Date of filing: 10.04.2013.
Date of disposal: 20.12.2013.
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.L., Member
Friday, the 20th day of December, 2013
C.C.No.62 of 2013
Between:
D.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o (late) Marreddy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Practicing Advocate, R/o.5-48 A, Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.
….. Complainant
And
1. M/s Mahindra and Mahindra, Rpe: by Chiarman cum Managing Director, Gate Way
Buildings, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400001.
2. M/s R. Garapathi Auto Ventures Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, Srinivasa Nagar
Bank Colony, Vijayawada - 8.
3. M/s Ray Chand Auto Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, 4-151, Prasadampadu,
NH5, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 8.
4. The Customer Care Incharge, Rep: by its Incharge, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.,
Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers – 3rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101.
5. Sunil Doddamani, Customer Care Area Manager, Rep: by its Manager, Mahnidra
and Mahindra Area Office, Hyderabad.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 12.12.2013, in the presence Sri B. Venkata Reddy, advocate for complainant; Sri I. Venkateswara Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1, 4, and 5; Sri J.R. Satyanarayana Prasad, advocate for opposite party no.2; Sri P. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, advocate for opposite party no.3 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. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the petition schedule mentioned vehicle with a new Mahindra Xylo E8 ABS with a condition to pay life tax by opposite parties 1 and 3, for a direction to the opposite parties to 1, 3 to 5 to pay damages to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant a practicing advocate at Vijayawada purchased Mahindra Xylo E8 ABS car from the 2nd opposite party the dealer of the 1st opposite party company on 12.4.2010 for Rs.8,69,900/- on exchange of his Honda City Sedan Type Car. For that transaction the complainant availed loan from Axis Bank, Vijayawada. About 10 days after the purchase the complainant observed sound in the right side front wheel when the car was taking turn to either left or right. The complainant on observing it complained to the 2nd opposite party and at the request of the staff of the 2nd opposite party put the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for rectification of the problem. They asked him to contact technician and on his direction the 2nd opposite party conducted repairs and delivered back the car to the complainant. Few months later the complainant noticed front suspension sound and he informed it to the technician immediately. As per his advice the vehicle was taken to the 3rd opposite party for servicing and left there for two days. On the 3rd day the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. About one year later the problem again started. The complainant sent message to 4th opposite party on 17.4.2012 through fax. As there was no response another mail was sent on 26.4.2012 as the problem was not rectified yet another mail was sent to 4th opposite party on 31.5.2012 asking the 4th opposite party to refund the invoice price within three weeks time. Then they deputed one B. Sunil area manager i.e., the 5th opposite party who asked the complainant to keep the vehicle with the 3rd opposite party for 4 days and he said that one Subrahmanyam would come and do the needful. On the 5th day the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. Later on 31.10.2012 the complainant noticed bubbles with paint on the left side front door under the door handle. A mail was sent to the 4th opposite party they informed that the 5th opposite party would take appropriate measures. Thus the vehicle was kept for two days and delivered back to the complainant on 10.11.2012 stating that rust was found because of mal-administration of paint and that it would not recur. On 7.1.2013 the vehicle was handed over to the 3rd opposite party for certain accessories and for repair of fuel gage level meter. The 3rd opposite party told the complainant that one week time was required as they could not rectify the defect at that time. Then the complainant took back the vehicle and again handed over the vehicle for rectifying certain defects including painting on the left front door. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2013 after repainting and repairing. The complainant was very particular about getting his vehicle serviced as per the manual given by the 1st opposite party. The complainant had to bear difficulties and defects of the schedule vehicle for nearly three years and even then there was no peace of mind. There are three holes in the in the body of the car at the right side rear tyre. The complainant was under the impression that the vehicle was not manufactured with best quality material and consequently the complainant was to face many problems right from the date of purchase. So the complainant had decided to get replacement of the vehicle with a brand new vehicle with a condition for payment of life tax by the opposite parties 1 and 3. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the difference of invoice price to the 1st opposite party apart from depreciation of the old vehicle. The complainant accordingly issued a notice on 5.4.2013. He asked the opposite parties 3 and 4 to resolve the issue within 72 hours. The opposite parties are not interested to replace the vehicle. Therefore the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The 1st, 4th and 5th opposite parties filed common version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:
The vehicles manufactured at the plant of the opposite parties are thoroughly inspected before passing through factory works for discharge to the authorized dealer. The service centers are manned by qualified and experienced personnel. The complainant made baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without obtaining any expert report from recognized or notified laboratory. The complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute and this complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle purchased by the complainant requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components mainly air filter, fuel filter etc., at recommended intervals as noted in the owner’s manual and service book. The complainant failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual. The warranty is applicable to the subject vehicle for two years from the date of sale or 50,000 Kms whichever is earlier, subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions. If any preventive maintenance services are not availed at required intervals no warranty consideration can be accorded to the complaint. In view of improper maintenance the complainant is not entitled to the warranty benefits. The vehicle sold to the complainant was delivered after carrying out free delivery inspection by the dealer. The vehicle was checked at workshop by quality inspector and domestic expert cum trainer during free and post repairs to ensure quality workmanship. The vehicle attended by the opposite parties dealers and service points fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specifications. The complainant’s vehicle had covered 59,996 Kms by 17.6.2013. It shows that it had covered 1,578 Kms approximately per month. It shows that the vehicle was in absolute roadworthy condition. The jobs carried out were minor and running repairs which were required to be regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the vehicle. The opposite parties were prompt and swift to attend the grievances reported by the complainant. The vehicle is out of warranty by the time of filing the complaint. The repairs and replacements can be undertaken on paid basis only. The prayer for replacement of vehicle is untenable. The complainant cannot claim compensation or damages from the opposite parties. This complaint is false and vexatious. The dispute requires deposition of witness and trial and can be appropriately done by a Civil court. Therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction. The complainant’s vehicle was brought for first free service on 10.6.2010 when the vehicle meter reading was 5,007 Kms. The 2nd free service was done on 13.10.2010 on 9,578 Kms. There was maintenance service and normal check up. Again the vehicle was brought on 5.2.2011 at meter reading on 14,946 Kms for third free service. No complaint was recorded by the complainant and no complaint was observed by the workshop. The complainant had satisfied with the service and accordingly acknowledged it through satisfaction note. Later the vehicle was brought on 16.2.2011 complaining that all seats and doors are noisy, total body bolts tight, front RHS power window not working properly and clutch pedal was hard. General check up was done and complaints were addressed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle was again reported to Steelcity Properties Pvt., Ltd., on or around 6.6.2011 on 19,549 Kms of meter reading. The complainant was satisfied with the jobs done by the workshop and acknowledged the same by signing the satisfactory voucher. Thereafter the vehicle was brought on 20.10.2011 at meter reading of 23,864 Kms. Paid service was done and the complaints of front RHS suspension noise, door noise, front RHS seat noise and low mileage were resolved. Thereafter the vehicle was brought to 3rd opposite party on 10.12.2011 at meter reading of 25,468 Kms. It was complained that fuel meter was not working RHS front suspension was emanating sound and sound in clutch pedal, all seats and all doors. They were all attended. The complainant as gesture of his appeasement has signed the satisfaction note. Thereafter the vehicle had reported at workshop of 3rd opposite party on 6.1.2012 at the meter reading of 26,277 Kms. The complaint was KM fuel meter was not working, fuel sound at 30 Km/hour speed, clutch hard and pedal sound. In inspection there as no issue of fuel meter or fuel sound. The issue of clutch was set right by changing clutch master cylinder project U and pedal and box assy clutch under warranty. Again the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 27.1.2012 at the meter reading of 27,145 Kms complaining fuel sound at 30 Km/Hour. It was repaired and the complainant on satisfaction with the jobs done issued satisfaction note. Later the vehicle reported at the workshop on 6.3.2012 at meter reading of 28,758 Kms for schedule service along with a problem of engine oil leak. Servicing was done and the problem was rectified. Later the vehicle was brought on 12.3.2012 at meter reading of 29,173 Kms complaining low pick up, clutch pedal sound and check of 4 wheel breaks. They were rectified under warranty. Again the complainant issued satisfaction note. Later the vehicle was brought on 17.4.2012 complaining clutch sound and it was addressed. Thereafter the vehicle was brought on 10.5.2012 at the meter reading of 31,809 Kms with problems of clutch pedal noise, front suspension noise. They were attended to by changing silent block bush shock, clutch driven plate assy, clutch pressure plate and clutch release bearing under goodwill basis. The complainant issued satisfaction note. Thereafter the vehicle was reported on 1.6.2012 complaining non working of AC. It was set right by changing AC gas and compressor oil on paid basis and evaporator sub assy under goodwill basis as the warranty lapsed on 12.4.2012. The complainant again signed satisfaction note. Later the vehicle was brought on 6.8.2012 at the meter reading of 35,053 Kms for schedule service and complainant of fuel gage was not working, front LHS door check, brakes noise and front suspension noise. Schedule service was done and the complaints were rectified. Again the vehicle was brought on 12.10.2012 complaining brakes check up and steering vibration it was made right by replacing ibj gear steering and obj gear steering and brake oil on cost basis. Engine oil and oil filter were changed as demanded by the complainant. Subsequently the vehicle was brought on 10.11.2012 with problem of rust formed on the front door. The problem was attended on free of cost basis under goodwill basis though warranty period had lapsed. The complainant sent a letter dated 10.11.2012 showing satisfaction. The observation recorded by the service advisor on the job card and tests taken to resolve the complaints established that the complaints raised by the complainant are running complaints and recommended services. On 7.1.2013 the complainant brought the vehicle on the issues of wiper water not working, fuel guage not working and front bumper adjustment check up. The wiper blade back door, front wiper blade with rubber were replaced, general checks were done including water wash and wheel alignment at the request of the complainant. The complainant issued satisfaction note. Subsequently the vehicle reported on 18.2.2013 at approximately 50,000 Kms run to campaign service along with complaints on flashing, front brakes noise, air bag light blinking, wiper nozzles not working properly and fuel cap switch not working. The schedule service was done and alleged complaints were attended to. The vehicle was delivered on 20.2.2013. Later the vehicle was brought on 15.4.2013 at the meter reading of 54,594 Kms. The problem of AC not effective was resolved by changing AC gas and compressor oil. The complainant issued a satisfaction note. The complainant again brought the vehicle on 20.4.2013 for schedule service besides complaints of wiper nozzle not working, brake check up, inside sound check and fuel gas not working properly. The said complaints were repaired. The vehicle was again brought on 11.5.2013 at 55,500 Kms run complaining starting trouble check up and LHS mirror assembly replace, they were attended to and general check was done. The vehicle was again brought on 17.6.2013 at the meter reading of 59,996 Kms for schedule service besides problems of brake check up, fog lamp pad adjust and AC mesh clean. Recommended services were done and the problems were attended to. The vehicle was always reported with minor problems and running repairs they were thoroughly rectified to the full satisfaction of the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect and there was no deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to replacement of utility vehicle or refund of the price. The complainant failed to produce any report from authorized laboratory as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:
The complainant purchased the schedule car from the 2nd opposite party the then dealer of 1st opposite party. The dealership with the 2nd opposite party was terminated and it is within the knowledge of the complainant. On such termination of dealership the complainant is going to the 3rd opposite party for the services of the car. The 3rd opposite party is the concerned party for all the transactions of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is unnecessarily impleaded. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. This complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The 3rd opposite party filed version generally denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating in line with the version of the opposite parties 1, 4 and 5th that the 3rd opposite party had given good service to the complainant as and when he complained of any drawbacks; that the complainant suppressed true and real facts and approached with uncleaned hands; that there were no serious complaints in the vehicle and there were only minor complaints which were attended to by the 3rd opposite party and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant every time to his full satisfaction that the warranty had expired on 12.4.2012 and the complaint is filed on 10.4.2013. The 3rd opposite party further states that even after filing this complaint the complainant got the subject vehicle repaired in the 3rd opposite party workshop on 15.4.2013, 20.4.2013 and 11.5.2013 that they were only nominal complaints and the complainant got service of the vehicle on chargeable basis and took delivery of the vehicle endorsing full satisfaction; that the complainant paid the bill amounts also on the above dates. The complainant himself wrote a letter of satisfaction on 10.11.2012; that the complainant is not entitled to claim new vehicle or for compensation and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party and there was no manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle.
6. The complainant filed rejoinder on 7.8.2013 meeting allegations made by the opposite parties that the satisfaction endorsement made by the complainant were also subject to driving of the vehicle as noted in them.
7. The complainant filed his affidavit as deposition of PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A20 on his behalf. The Deputy Manager, Commercial of opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 filed his affidavit as deposition of DW-1. The Manager of the 2nd opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW-2. The General Manager of the 3rd opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW-3. Exs.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 and Exs.B6 to B47 are marked on behalf of the 3rd opposite party.
8. Heard the arguments. The complainant and opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 also filed written arguments.
9. The points for determination are:
- Whether there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle mentioned in the petition schedule?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Points 1 and 2:
10. The facts narrated by the complainant and contentions raised in the complaint show that according to the complainant the vehicle was continuously giving trouble right from the date of purchase and manufacturing defect can be inferred. Admittedly the vehicle was taken to the servicing centers of the 1st opposite party on several occasions. The initial service was done by the 2nd opposite party the then dealer of the 1st opposite party. The copies of the job cards and repair orders and satisfaction notes filed by the opposite party are not fully visible. Ex.A18 the set of pre-invoices filed by the complainant refer to the dates 13.10.2010, 20.10.2011, 10.12.2011, 6.1.2012, 27.1.2012, 6.3.2012, 12.3.2012, 1.6.2012, 6.8.2012, 12.10.2012 and 20.2.2013. The 1st opposite party had admitted in its version that the vehicle was brought to the workshop for servicing or repairs on different dates. The 1st opposite party had given dates of the vehicle reporting at the service centers as 10.6.2010, 13.10.2010, 5.2.2011, 16.2.2011, 6.6.2011, 20.10.2011, 10.12.2011, 6.1.2012, 27.1.2012, 6.3.2012, 12.3.2012, 17.4.2012, 10.5.2012, 1.6.2012, 6.8.2012, 12.10.2012, 10.11.2012, 7.1.2013, 18.2.2013, 20.2.2013, 15.4.2013, 20.4.2013, 11.5.2013, and 17.6.2013. The 3rd opposite party filed copies of services notes under Exs.B37 to B47. They also contains satisfaction notes said to have been signed by the complainant. In this satisfaction notes there is printed matter that the customer had received the vehicle back in good condition and was fully satisfied with the jobs done. The place meant for comments by customer the complainant seems to have made some comments on some occasions. On the note dated 7.8.2012 vide Ex.B40 the complainant had noted the comments relating spare parts and servicing. The writing is not completely discernable. In Ex.A42 for the date 7.1.2013 there was no comment made by the complainant. Ex.A41 a copy of letter appears to have been addressed by the complainant personally on 10.11.2012 he has categorically stated that on that it he received the vehicle after completion of painting and removal of rust on the vehicle that he was delivering the letter on satisfaction for the complained works done by the 3rd opposite party without collecting any amount. There is no reference made that he has to further check the condition of the vehicle after driving the vehicle. But it was given on the same day of taking delivery from workshop. So there may not be time for detailed observation. In the written arguments the complainant stated that he was issuing satisfactory note always with an endorsement that ‘subject to driving of the vehicle’ (vide written arguments of the complainant Pg.7). Such an endorsement is not seen on all the satisfactory notes filed by the opposite parties.
11. The manufacturing defect will have to be established either by producing technical opinion or by showing circumstances leading to inference that there must have been manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Evidently there is no technical opinion obtained by the complainant to show that there is manufacturing defect in any part of the subject vehicle. To draw inference as to manufacturing defect there must be strong instances of the defective behavior of the vehicle insptite of services rendered by the concerned opposite parties.
12. The complainant himself stated in the complaint that he first noticed sound in the right side front wheel 10 days after purchase but the 1st servicing was done by the opposite party on 10.6.2010. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the vehicle was taken to the service center within 10 days after purchasing the vehicle. The complainant further stated in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party conducted repairs and delivered back the same to the complainant that for few months he enjoyed the riding of the vehicle and there after he found front suspension sound and informed to the technician and as per his advice approached the 3rd opposite party. The complainant further stated that the vehicle was kept for two days and the 3rd opposite party had delivered the vehicle on third day and that about one year there after the problem again started on 17.4.2012. So according to his statement in the complaint there were only two occasions of problem faced in between 12.4.2010 and 17.4.2012. The approach to the service center of other dates may be for normal servicing either free service or paid service. If there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, using the vehicle without major trouble for a long period of two years is not practicable. Then it cannot be readily inferred that there was manufacturing defect in any part of the vehicle.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant relies upon the decisions in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and Others Vs T. Nagender, 2006 (1) CPJ 4 (NC); Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs Affiliate East West Press, 2008 (1) CPJ 19 (NC); Bajaj Auto Ltd. and another Vs Ashok Kumar, 2008 (3) CPJ 30 (NC) and Kinetic Motors Ltd., Vs Lt. Cdr. Udaybir and others 2008 (1) CPJ 490 (NC). In Hero Honda Motor Ltd., a motor cycle was continuously taken to service centre for the same problem from the date of purchase. One work shop said to have issued certificate that there was manufacturing defect. There was no other expert opinion. The National Commission did not disturb the finding that there was manufacturing defect. In the second case referred to above a luxury Accent car was purchased on 31.12.2004. Fuel leakage was found by the time of 1st servicing, white smoke was noticed by the date of 2nd servicing. Later Valve Assy – EGR was found defective and it was replaced on 23.9.2005. There was complaint of fuel smell and black smoke from the exhaust in November, 2005. By then four complaints were made by the customer. The National Commission observed that the car required to be repaired on several occasions and the defect of smoke omission could not be rectified. In that case also the customer had expressed satisfaction with the repairs on several occasions. The National Commission had upheld the order of Sate Commission to refund the cost of vehicle and to pay compensation. Factual details of Bajaj Auto Ltd., case are not available. So we cannot rely on any of the findings in that case. There was no legal principle laid down. The complaint was filed within 8 months of purchase. In Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. case the scooter was giving trouble even by the date of 1st servicing. There was problem by the time of 2nd and 3r servicing. Some of the problems were repeating. The finding of the District Forum and State Commission that there was manufacturing defect was upheld by the National Commission. It is not known how long after purchase the complaint was filed. It may have been filed soon after 3rd servicing as there is no reference to further service done to the vehicle.
14. In the present case there is no certificate issued by even a private mechanic. The 3rd opposite party workshop never mentioned any defect in any item of the vehicle. The complainant did not raise any complaint within a warranty period of two years. As observed earlier the complainant himself had stated about the using the vehicle for more than a year and not mentioning any complaint in that time. So we cannot readily draw inference from mere servicing centre a few times more than the schedule servicing that there was manufacturing defect in any part of the vehicle.
15. The learned counsel for the opposite parties rely on the decisions in Maruthi Udyog Limited Vs Sushil Kumar, 2006 (2) CPJ 3 (SC), Dr. K. Kumar, Advisor Engineering, Maruthi Udyoga Limited Vs Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao and Another, 2010 (1) CPJ 19 (NC) and Bharathi Knitting Company Vs DHL Worldwide Express Carrier Division of Air Freight Limited, 1996 (4) SCC 704. In Maruthi Udyog Limited case the Apex Court had observed that in that case the warranty conditions were specifically stated that it is not a case of silence of contract of sale as to warranty and therefore the High Court was not justified in directing the replacement of the vehicle. They directed replacement of a defective clutch assembly besides other reliefs.
16. In Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao’s case there was no expert evidence in support of defect in the vehicle and the vehicle had run smoothly for 16 months which was held to be indicative of absence of manufacturing defect. In Bharathi Knitting case the liability was limited to the extent undertaken by the parties. So following the ruling of Apex Court in Maruthi Udyog Limited case we can safely say that the complainant has not made out a case for replacement of entire vehicle or replacement of a specific part of the vehicle.
17. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who were required to do service to the vehicle to the vehicle will have to perform their service without any deficiency on their part. If they carry out the services the defect rectified shall not recur within very short period and without any external damage to the vehicle. In the present case the vehicle was taken to the 3rd opposite party for third free servicing on 5.2.2011 schedule service and standard checks were done as per the version of the opposite parties. The vehicle was again brought to the 3rd opposite party on 16.2.2011 i.e., about 10 days after 3rd free service complaining all seats and doors noisy, total body bolts tight and front RHS power window not working properly and clutch pedal was fault. If proper servicing was done on 5.2.2011 there cannot be such defect occurring in the vehicle within 10 days. No doubt the complainant did not raise any dispute at that point of time. Ex.A19 contains the two job cards dated 16.2.2011 and 6.8.2012 the job card dated 16.2.2011 does not contain any writing of endorsement made specifically referring any external damage to the vehicle. The customer complaints are noted and diagnosis is not specifically mentioned. Noise in the vehicle is repeatedly complained even subsequently. Therefore that there appears to be want of proper and complete service on the date of 3rd free service i.e., 5.2.2011.
18. On 20.10.2011 the vehicle was taken for schedule servicing at 25,000 KMS and the complaints include RHS suspension noise, door noise, front RHS seat noise and low mileage the job was performed and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant but again within two months the vehicle was brought to the 3rd opposite party on 10.12.2011 complaining non-working of fuel meter, RHS front suspension sound, clutch pedal sound all seats sound, all doors sound. When door noise, suspension noise and seat noise were reported on 20.10.2011 the same problem arising again within period of two months looks absurd. The vehicle meanwhile covered only 1604 KMS. Exs.B11 to B14 are the relevant papers pertaining to the job done on 10.12.2011. Here again no note is made by the 3rd opposite party as to any mishandling of the vehicle or any external damage caused to the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 13.12.2011. Subsequently within one month the vehicle was again brought to the 3rd opposite party with complaints of fuel meter not working, fuel sound at speed of 30 KMPH, clutch hard and pedal sound. It is stated that on inspection no such issue of fuel meter or fuel sound were found. Ex.B15 is the relevant document filed by the opposite parties. There is no endorsement made by the personnel of the 3rd opposite party on Ex.B15 to show that the complaints reported did not exist. The defense taken cannot be weighed. Later when the vehicle was reported on 12.3.2012 at the workshop of the 3rd opposite party the problems reported were low pickup, clutch pedal sound, checking four wheel brakes. The opposite party says that they were rectified under warranty and the complainant showed satisfaction. Again on 17.4.2012 the vehicle was reported with complaints including clutch sound. The clutch pedal noise and front suspension noise were noticed again on 10.5.2012 besides other problems. It seems that even painting on the left door was not properly done as the problem surfaced again within short period. If servicing was done by the trained technician recurrence in short internals would not happen. It is not the case of any of the opposite parties that any part of the vehicle was subjected to damage and for that reason there was recurrence of problems. Then this Forum can only deduce that the service rendered by the 3rd opposite party is not up to satisfaction and not up to mark required to see the vehicle running in proper condition. The complainant signing printed form showing satisfaction is no defense to the deficiency patent from the record produced by the opposite parties and the version of the opposite parties 1, 4 and 5. Therefore we are of the opinion that though the 3rd opposite party had rendered service it was not up to mark and there is a sort of deficiency in service on its part. Since the 3rd opposite party is rendering service on the behalf of the 1st opposite party both opposite parties 1 and 3 were responsible for such deficiency in service.
19. The other contention of the opposite party relating to jurisdiction of this Forum is not tenable. The learned counsel for the complainant stated in Pg.7 of written arguments that after purchase many and frequency of complaints with regard to performance of the vehicle were alleged before expiry of two years and were attended by 3rd opposite party were actually not rectified and the problems were repeating. The fact that complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party on several dates is admitted by the opposite parties in their version and it is narrated above. No written complaint is shown to have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties pointing out any general or specific defect in the vehicle within the warranty period of two years. The earliest mail is dated 26.4.2012 which is beyond two years from the date of purchase. Therefore this contention of the complainant is not correct.
20. It is to be noted that even subsequent to filing of the complaint the complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party on 15.4.2013, 20.4.2013 and 11.5.2013. On 20.4.2013 internal sound was one of the complaints made. As noted above the opposite parties 1 and 3 must be held responsible for deficiency in service. From the discussion above made we are of the considered opinion that there is a sort of deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party in rendering qualitative service to complainant which resulted in repetition of services for the same problems.
21. The complainant himself had stated in the rejoinder that the 2nd opposite party is only a proforma party and no relief is asked against himself.
Point No.3:
22. In view of the answer on points 1 and 2 the complainant is not entitled to either replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost. He is entitled to compensation for deficient service rendered by the opposite parties 1 and 3. No liability need be fixed upon the opposite parties 4 and 5 who are employees of the opposite parties 1 and 3. As observed no relief is asked against the 2nd opposite party. Therefore we hold it appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 and 3 to pay a reasonable sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.
23. In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the complainant within one month from the date of order of this Forum. In default the amounts awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of expiry of the time given for compliance. The complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed. Complaint against opposite parties 2, 4 and 5 is dismissed.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th day of December, 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
D.V. Ramana Reddy – PW-1. The Deputy Manager,
Commercial of opposite parties1, 4 and 5 – DW-1; The Manager 2nd OP – DW-2; The Managerof 3rd OP – DW-3.
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 12.04.2010 Photocopy of tax invoice
Ex.A2 12.04.2010 Photocopy of sale certificate.
Ex.A3 12-01-2010 Photocopy of sale certificate (Form.21).
Ex.A4 Photocopy of Form.22, Initial certificate of compliance.
Ex.A5 17.04.2012 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A6 21.04.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to OPs customer care.
Ex.A7 20.04.2012 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.A8 26.04.2012 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A9 31.05.2012 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A10 31.10.2012 Photocopy of reply mail sent by OP to complainant.
Ex.A11 Photocopy of mail sent by OP to complainant.
Ex.A12 02.11.2012 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A13 11.11.2012 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A14 07.01.2013 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.A15 20.02.2013 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.A16 05.04.2013 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs and Copy of letter issued by complainant to customer care in-charge, Mahindra & Mahindra.
Ex.A17 05.04.2013 Photocopy of mail sent by complainant to OPs and Copy of letter issued by complainant to customer care in-charge, Mahindra & Mahindra.
Ex.A18 Photocopies of tax invoices (14).
Ex.A19 06.08.2012 Photocopy of job card (2).
Ex.A20 Photocopy of registration certificate.
On behalf of the opposite parties 1, 4 and 5:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of warranty policy manual.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of maintenance services schedule.
Ex.B3 Photocopy of job-card.
Ex.B4 Photocopy of repair order.
Ex.B5 Photocopy of repair order.
On behalf of the 3rd opposite party:
Ex.B6 05.02.2011 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B7 06.06.2011 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B8 06.06.2011 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B9 06.06.2011 Photocopy of cash receipt.
Ex.B10 Photocopy of vehicle complaints note.
Ex.B11 10.12.2011 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B12 10.12.2011 Photocopy of repair order.
Ex.B13 13.12.2011 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.B14 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B15 Photocopy of vehicle complaints note.
Ex.B16 Photocopy of repair order.
Ex.B17 27.01.2012 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.B18 27.01.2012 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B19 06.03.2012 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B20 Photocopy of repair order.
Ex.B21 06.03.2012 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.B22 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B23 Photocopy of vehicle repair order.
Ex.B24 12.03.2012 Photocopy of tax invoice.
Ex.B25 12.03.2012 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B26 16.05.2012 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B27 01.06.2012 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B28 10.11.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to the Manager, Steelcity Properties Pvt., Ltd.
Ex.B29 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B30 Photocopy of cash receipt.
Ex.B31 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B32 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B33 15.04.2013 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B34 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B35 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B36 12.04.2010 Photocopy of warranty certificate.
Ex.B37 06.06.2011 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B38 06.06.2011 Photocopy of vehicle repair order.
Ex.B39 06.01.2012 Photocopy of vehicle repair order.
Ex.B40 06.08.2012 Photocopy of satisfaction note.
Ex.B41 10.11.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to the Manager, Steelcity Properties Pvt., Ltd.
Ex.B42 07.01.2012 Photocopies of job card, tax invoice and satisfaction note.
Ex.B43 18.02.2013 Photocopies of job card, tax invoice.
Ex.B44 Photocopies of cash receipt, pre-invoice, satisfaction note and tax invoice.
Ex.B45 15.04.2013 Photocopies of satisfaction note, tax invoice and job card.
Ex.B46 Photocopies of satisfaction note and job card.
Ex.B47 Photocopies of cash receipt, job-card, tax invoice and gate pass.
PRESIDENT
