ADV. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER
The complainant filed this complaint for getting replace of two new tyres and in default get an amount of Rs.3,900/- and for other relief
The complainant’s case is that when he handed over his Alto LXI car having Reg.No.KL-2/R 8744 to the 3rd opp.party the service adviser of the 2nd opp.party for repair, the two tyres including the stipine tyres are replaced with old tyres, the newly fitted bumper in found rub and repained, deficiency in coolant and petrol were found. Without getting relief, he filed this complaint for replacing the two tyres with new one and for other reliefs.
1st opp.party filed version contenting that the complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material on record. The complaint is, therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 [herein after called “The Act” for the sake of brevity]. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the first opposite party. The liability of first opposite party , under the warranty which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out under the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and
service booklet. The first opp.party had discharged their obligations under warranty unequivocally during the tenure of warranty. Here it is pertinent to mention that the warranty of vehicle in question concluded on 30..3..2006 by efflux of time. The complaint deseres to be dismissed on this ground alone, that the complainant is not a consumer of the answering opp.party as defined U/s 2 [1] [d] [ii] of the Act. The complainant cannot be allowed to raise any claim against the answering opp.party after the expiry of warranty period. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods [car] accidental repairs nor hired any service for consideration with the answering opp.party. Even otherwise the accidental repairs are not covered under ambit of warranty of this opp.party More so the answering opp.party was not privy to the transaction alleged to have happened between the complainant and opp.party No. 2 and 3. The complaint against this opp.party is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed in-limine.
2nd opp.party filed version contenting that the complainant is the absolute owner and he is in possession of KL-2/R 8744 Alto Car with chassis No.314273 and engine No.3063282 is not known to this opp.party. It is true that the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the workshop of this opp.party at Karikode, Kollam on 4.4.2009 for the work of break overhauling, wheel balancing etc and had carried out the said works and the vehicle was returned to the complainant by 5 p.m. and the complainant was satisfied with the same. It is not true or correct to state that after taking delivery of the vehicle after the service the complainant had again brought the vehicle to the workshop saying the complaint of some missing or jumping. The complainant had not brought the vehicle again on the same day to the workshop of the opp.party saying the complaint of missing and jumping and this opp.party or any of its staff had not inform him that the tyres were removed and refitted as alleged in the complaint. The vehicle was subjected for wheel balancing as demanded by the complainant when the vehicle was entrusted with the workshop of this opp.party’s workshop on 4.4.2009, but the mechanic or any other person did not refitted the tyres after handing over the vehicle to the complaint by 5 p.m. on that day of taking delivery of the vehicle after the repair works as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had not brought the vehicle again to the workshop of this opp.party after taking delivery of the same by 5 p.m. after the service of the vehicle. The contra allegations are false and hence denied by this opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties
2. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 is examined and marked Exts. P1 to P7
THE POINTS:
Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed version and cross examined PW.1. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced from their side. Opp.party 3 did not appear and was set exparte. According to the 1st opp.party the main contention is that since the warranty of the vehicle concluded on 30..3..2006, the complainant is not a consumer of 1st opp.party. The car stands warranty for a term of 24 months or 40000 KMs which ever event occurs first from the date of delivery. Here the complainant purchased the vehicle on 31..3..2000 the warranty concluded on 30..3..2006. Moreover they have only responsibility to provide warranty services which has been fulfilled during the tenure of warranty. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of this opp.party, towards the complainant. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them. During evidence time PW.1 deposed that warranty period dqjB\Bkxx defects rj\ Qgk fgf\fjhkA Kf\fgipjfIA Th\h; tr\rk eyukr\rk Cgjulnk\ opp.party 3 uksm work shop H il<rA rHdjufk\ opp.party 1 sRy LyjSilsm Llujgkr\rjh\h; During argument time also the complainant’s counsel has not claimed any relief from the 1st opp.party. Hence from the entire evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the 1st opp.party.
With regard to 2nd and 3rd opp.party, 2nd opp.party admit that the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the workshop of this opp.party on 4..4..2009 and also on 16..5..2009 for carrying out work. On 4..4..2009 the ehicle was subjected for wheel balancing as demanded by the complainant but the mechanic or any other person did not refitted the tyres. They denied that the complainant had not brought the vehicle again to the workshop on 4..4..2009 after delivery at 5 p.m. According to them the incident such as the newly fitted bumber is found rubbed against and repainted is not true or correct. Moreover there was no deficiency in coolant and petrol. Their version is that the vehicle was returned to the complainant after doin g the repair works perfectly.
According to the complainant he had made complaint before the Manager Vinod of 2nd opp.party. He assured that the matter will be enquired. But nothing has been done. Hence he contacted with the customer care centre, Thiruvananthapuram. As per their request the car was produced before Mr Deepk who was the show room Manager. But none of them enquired the matter. After that he sent a written letter to 2nd opp.party. But no reply was sent and no action was taken. The 2nd opp.party in his written statement stated that if the allegation raised by the complainant is genuine, he should have made a complaint or inform the same to him immediately. Here the complainant produced Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 for proving his contention. After getting Ext.P4 the 2nd opp.party did not sent even a reply to the complainant. Opp.party 2 and 3 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence for proving their contentions stated in the written statement. Hence we are constrained to believe contentions in Ext.P4and in the complaint.
On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opp.parties 2 and 3.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The 2nd and 3rd opp.parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,900/- being the cost of two tyres to the complainant and also Rs.2500/- as compensation for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complaint. Rs. 1000/- as compensation and cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2012.
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Manoharan .K.
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Invoice bill
P2. – Copy of RC Book
P3. – Bill for service charge
P3 [a] Receipt
P4. – Letter to the General Manager
P5. – Letter dated 9..7..2009
P6. - Tyre details of Owners Manual
P7. – Postal receipt
