IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.132/2011 (Filed on 01.06.2011)
Between:
Babumon. N. Abraham,
Nediyakalayil House,
Chenneerkkara.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
(By Adv. Zakir Husain. T)
And:
1. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Regional Office (South III),
2nd Floor, Tutus Tower,
NH-47 Bypass, Padivattom,
Cochin – 682 024.
2. M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Opp. Cochin Shipyard,
M.G. Road, Cochin – 15.
3. M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Indus Building, Kumbazha.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Opposite parties.
(By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker & T.A. Saviour
for opposite parties 2 & 3)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant is the owner of a Maruti Swift Desire VDI Model with Reg.No.KL.03/S-7673. The said motor car manufactured and distributed by the 1st opposite party was newly purchased by the complainant on 06.02.2010 from the 2nd opposite party and taken delivery from the showroom of the 3rd opposite party. The sales manager of the 2nd opposite party received an amount of ` 6,52,389 from the complainant towards the price of the new vehicle including insurance and road tax. The newly purchased motor car hardly after one month frequently showed starting trouble. The complainant promptly brought the defect to the notice of the opposite parties. The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party on several times in the short span for the same complaint. The service personnel attached to the 3rd opposite party workshop attended to and carried out repairs on the vehicle and kept the car in the workshop for days together, done test drive for kilometers and effected replacement of number of accessories. But the defect could not be detected and rectified. Some occasions the complainant had to hire some carriages leaving the newly purchased vehicle way side. On some other occasions the complainant and his family members had to wait even at odd hours till the vehicle in question got restarted after a considerable time. The complainant who purchased the vehicle hoping a better service couldn’t so far avail of the defect free service offered by the opposite party. So the opposite parties are statutorily bound to redress the grievances of the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the deficiency in service. The complainant is also entitled to get damages for the mental agony and pain he had undergone on account of being provided with a defective vehicle. Hence this complaint for the refund of an amount of Rs.6,52,389 received from the complainant or to replace the defective motor car with a new one of the same description along with Rs.1,00,000 as compensation.
3. 1st opposite party is exparte. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed common version with the following contentions. Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 2nd and 3rd opposite party admit that complainant had taken delivery of the Maruti Swift Desire vehicle on 15.02.2010 from 2nd and 3rd opposite party. The complainant had not specifically mentioned any complaint to his vehicle. There is no spedific allegations against this opposite parties who are the dealer of Maruti and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the opposite party’s workshop for first free service on 17.07.2010. The demanded works were done and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day and he had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. Again the vehicle was brought to the opposite party’s workshop for certain demanded works and for running repairs on 31.07.2010, 30.09.2010, 07.01.2011, 22.01.2011, 24.01.2011, 27.01.2011 and 29.01.2011 respectively. The said works were done and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. Finally on 22.01.2011 the vehicle was brought to the opposite party’s workshop with the problem of starting trouble, head light repair and water leaking in the floor. The demanded works were done and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day and he took the vehicle with full satisfaction.
4. Opposite parties had promptly attended to the repair works demanded by the complainant at all time. Every time the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after repair works and service with satisfaction and no complaints raised an alleged by the complainant regarding any deficiency of service from the opposite parties. An automobile vehicle is made out of moving part and there is every chance that it may cause complaint or error to any parts of the said vehicle and the same is always curable and there will be no manufacturing defects to the said vehicle. The complainant has no cause of action against any of the opposite parties and hence he is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence the opposite party is not liable to the complainant and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the above complaint with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they cross-examined the complainant. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he purchased a Maruti Swift Desire Car from the opposite parties on 06.02.2010, for which he had paid ` 6,52,389. The newly purchased vehicle hardly after one month started showing starting troubles. The complainant brought the defects to the notice of the opposite parties. Complainant approached the 3rd opposite party’s workshop on several times in a short span of time for repair. The complainant who purchased the vehicle hoping a better service could not so far avail of the defect free service offered by the opposite parties. Opposite party’s has not rectified the defect of starting trouble so far which is a manufacturing defect. Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with A17 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A17. Ext.A1 is the proforma invoice dated 06.02.2010. Ext.A2 is the receipt of ` 5,000 dated 04.01.2009. Ext.A3 is the receipt of ` 5,62,389 dated 11.02.2010. Ext.A4 is the receipt of ` 5,400 dated 12.02.2010. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of registration certificate. Ext.A6 to A6(c) are the job cards from 17.07.2010 to 29.01.2011 issued by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A7 is the e-mail correspondence with the opposite party. Ext.A8 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant. Ext.A9 is the letter of apology issued by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A10 is the e-mail correspondence through Maruti website. Ext.A11 is the vehicle details send by the complainant. Ext.A12 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant. Ext.A13 series are the postal receipts of Ext. A12 dated 24.02.2011. Ext.A14 series are the postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A12 dated 26.02.2011. Ext.A15 is the vehicle pick up slip dated 18.02.2011. Ext.A16 is the vehicle pick up slip dated 16.03.2011. Ext.A17 is the delivery card dated 24.02.2011.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had not specifically mentioned any complaint to his vehicle. The vehicle in question was brought to opposite party’s workshop several time by the complainant with certain demanded works, which were done and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day and he had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. The alleged starting trouble is only a minor complaint which is curable and the opposite parties are ready and willing to cure the said complaint. The complainant has no cause of action against any of the opposite parties. So they are not liable for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, opposite parties has not adduced any oral evidence in their favour. But they cross-examined the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute with regard to the purchase and sale of the car. The only dispute is with regard to an alleged manufacturing defect. According to the complainant, the starting trouble of his car is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. But the contention of the opposite party is that the alleged starting trouble is not a manufacturing defect and it is only a curable defect and the said defect was cured properly as and when the complainant reported the same. All complaints reported by the complainant were also perfectly repaired with full satisfaction of the complainant.
12. From the available evidence, it is seen that the opposite parties had attended the complainant’s complaint of the car properly. But even then, complainant is not satisfied with the repairs of the opposite parties for curing the problem of starting trouble. The complainant’s allegation is that the continuing starting trouble is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. But from the deposition of the complainant he is using the car though it had starting trouble. This indicates that the car is in running condition. Even though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in view of the starting trouble he had not adduced any cogent evidence to show that the so called starting trouble is a manufacturing defect. Further the complainant had no allegation against the opposite parties in the services rendered by them except the non-rectification of the starting trouble which according to opposite parties is normal and curable. The opposite parties also offered and assured that they are prepared to rectify the alleged defect. In the circumstances and in the absence of cogent evidence we cannot find any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. However, the complainant is entitled to get rectified the starting problem if any. Therefore, we dispose this case with the following directions:
13. In the result, this complaint is disposed as follows:
(1) 3rd opposite party is directed to conduct a full and
complete check-up of the complainant’s vehicle with
the help of a qualified and experienced technician for
detecting the problem if any which causes starting
problem as alleged by the complainant and to rectify
the said defect within five days from the date of
entrusting the car by the complainant to the 3rd
opposite party.
(2) The complainant is directed to entrust the car with
the 3rd opposite party within 7 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
(3) 2nd opposite party is directed to ensure the effective
compliance of this order in its spirit.
(4) In case of non-compliance of this order by the
opposite parties, complaint is allowed to rectify the
starting problem at his cost at any other authorized
maruti workshop within 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order and in that event complainant is
allowed to realize the entire costs of the said repairs
from opposite parties 2 and 3 along with compensation
of `10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of
` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) with 9%
interest per annum from the date of completion of the
work till the whole realization.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Babumon. N.A.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Proforma invoice dated 06.02.2010 issued by second
opposite party.
A2 : Receipt of ` 5,000 dated 04.01.2009 issued by the third
opposite party.
A3 : Receipt of ` 5,62,389 dated 11.02.2010 issued by third
opposite party.
A4 : Receipt of ` 5,400 dated 12.02.2010 issued by third
opposite party.
A5 : Photocopy of registration certificate.
A6 to A6(c) : Job cards from 17.07.2010 to 29.01.2011 issued by
the 3rd opposite party.
A7 : E-mail correspondence with the opposite party.
A8 : Copy of E-mail letter sent by the complainant to the
second opposite party.
A9 : Photocopy of the letter issued by the 3rd opposite party. A10 : E-mail correspondence in Maruti website.
A11 : vehicle details send by the complainant to the third
opposite party.
A12 : Photocopy of legal notice issued by the complainant to
the opposite parties.
A13 to A13(b) : Postal receipts of Ext. A12 legal notice.
A14 to A14(b) : Postal acknowledgment cards of Ext.A12.
A15 : Vehicle pick up slip dated 18.02.2011.
A16 : Vehicle pick up slip dated 16.03.2011.
A17 : delivery card dated 24.02.2011.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Babumon. N. Abraham, Nediyakalayil House,
Chenneerkkara.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office
(South III), 2nd Floor, Tutus Tower, NH-47 Bypass,
Padivattom, Cochin – 682 024.
(3) M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Cochin
Shipyard, M.G. Road, Cochin – 15.
(4) M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indus Building,
Kumbazha.P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
