DATE OF FILING : 1.12.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.223/2009

Between

Complainant : P.H.Hameed,

Puthenveettil House,

Kalayanthani P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.R.Viswan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. M/s.Popular Mega Motors (I) Limited,

Kuttikkattukara P.O,

Kalamassery,

Ernakulam.

2. M/s.Popular Mega Motors (I) Limited,

Near Private Bus Stand,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is engaged in the business of timber. Complainant purchased one 1613-SE model Tata Lorri from the Ist opposite party on 15.12.2006. At the time of purchase of the same, the Ist opposite party offered a warranty of 150000 Km. and as per the warranty, if any complaint or defect caused to the vehicle within that period, that would be repaired without any cost. All the periodical services of the vehicle were done promptly as per the direction of the Ist opposite party. As on 25.03.2009, the vehicle has covered only 75320 Kms. On 25.03.2009, when the vehicle was carrying with load, suddenly it stopped with a heavy sound on the way and the matter was immediately reported to the 2^nd opposite party. As per the direction of the Ist opposite party, the vehicle was pulled with another vehicle and kept at the 2^nd opposite party's workshop on 27.03.2009. Then the concerned officers inspected the vehicle and revealed that the engine lock of the vehicle has been damaged. The 2^nd opposite party started curing the defect of the vehicle and assured that the vehicle is having warranty. After that the 2^nd opposite party told that there is no warranty for the vehicle, so he directed the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- as advance. Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance to the opposite party and when the entire works were completed, the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.96,872/-. So on 23.04.2009 the 2^nd opposite party received the balance Rs.86,872/- from the complainant. If any complaint caused to the vehicle within the warranty period, the opposite party is entitled to service the vehicle with free of cost. But the opposite party received Rs.96,872/- from the complainant for the mechanical work of the vehicle, which is a clear violation of the warranty conditions. The complainant has spent another Rs.12,000/- for transporting the vehicle to the workshop of the 2^nd opposite party. A huge amount was also lost because of the non-plying of the vehicle. So this petition is filed for getting compensation under various heads.

 2. The opposite parties filed a written version stating that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite party offered a warranty of 18 months from the date of sale of the vehicle or 150000 Km. or 2000 hours of operation whichever is earlier. The date of alleged incident occurred after 2 years and 3 months of the sale of the vehicle. The conditions of warranty were described clearly in the owner's manual supplied to the complainant during the sale of the vehicle. In this case the complainant is not entitled for any warranty as per the offer. No free service was offered by the opposite party. The complainant was not prompt in his regular service with the opposite party. The complainant never plied the vehicle carefully, if so the incident would not have occurred. The opposite party did not know what happened on 25.03.2009. They know only when the vehicle was got to the service centre on 27.03.2009. In close examination, it was found that speed of the vehicle was reduced in inclined road and without giving proper care to the gear resulting the break down of engine block. This complaint can be rectified only resetting the new block. The opposite parties never informed the complainant that this work comes under the guarantee period. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the work was a paid one and so the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance. The opposite party is not aware whether the mistake happened due to manufacturing defect. The opposite parties are concerned with the sales and service of the vehicle. The manufacturer is not at all a party to this case. The opposite parties are not liable to rectify the defects of the vehicle without any cost. The bill amount received from the complainant is as per the existing law. So the petition may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4.The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party and Ext.R1 marked.

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting the expenses incurred for the service of the vehicle at the opposite party's workshop within the warranty period. The complainant was examined as PW1. The complainant is a timber merchant, who purchased a Tata Mini Lorri on 15.12.2006 from the Ist opposite party. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite party offered a warranty of 1,50,000 Km. and they offered free service for the vehicle if any defect caused within the warranty period. The vehicle became defective on 25.03.2009 while it was carrying with load. At that time the vehicle has covered only 75320 Kms. The vehicle was tied to another vehicle, pulled and got inside the workshop of the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite party started curing defects of the vehicle and they told that the defect caused within the warranty period. But after that they denied the warranty of the vehicle. A bill for Rs.86,872/- was given to PW1, after the repair of the vehicle, which is marked as Ext.P1. The complainant spent very huge amount for bringing the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party's workshop. So the opposite party is entitled to pay the amount to the complainant because the vehicle became defective within the warranty period. A legal notice was issued to the opposite party and it was marked as Ext.P2. But the opposite party never turned up. As per cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, it is deposed that the vehicle became defective after 2 years and 3 months. The user's manual was received at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant never knows whether the warranty period is for 18 months. No receipt for the periodical services of the vehicle was produced before the Forum. The driver was using the vehicle and the complainant is not aware what happened on 25.03.2009. The vehicle became mechanical trouble while it was carrying with load at Elappara, which is a high-range area. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party. The opposite party produced operator's service book of the vehicle which is marked as Ext.R1.

 6. As per the complainant, the vehicle showed mechanical trouble within the warranty period, that is within 1,50,000 Kms. of run. PW1 is not aware of the warranty conditions of the vehicle. The driver was using the vehicle at the time of defect. He never knows anything about the vehicle. The vehicle was promptly serviced by the complainant but no service receipts were produced by PW1. As per the opposite party, the warranty of the vehicle was only for 18 months and the defect was caused after the expiry of 2 years and 3 months. Moreover, the warranty of the vehicle is offered by the manufacturer for any manufacturing defects. But the manufacturer is not a party in this case. Ext.R1 is the Operator's service book in which the taerms and conditions of warranty is menti9oned. The first condition is that " this warranty shall be for 18 months from the date of sale of the vehicle by our Works or our Regional Sales Office or our Sales Establishment or our authorised dealers, or 1,50,000 Km. or 2000 hours of operation whichever is earlier". So we think that the warranty for the vehicle was 1,50,000 Km. or 18 months or 2000 hours of operation whichever is earlier. Here the defect was caused only after 2 years and 3 months even though the vehicle was not used 1,50,000 Km. So we think that the warranty period of the vehicle is expired and the complainant is entitled to pay the amount incurred for the repair of the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was using by the driver of the complainant. PW1 don't know what happened to the vehicle on that day. The complainant is engaged in timber business. So the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2010

                             Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                            Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

                           Sd/-       
 

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - P.H.Hameed

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 23.04.2009 for Rs.86,872/-

Ext.P2 - Copy of Legal Notice dated 4.05.2009 issued by the

advocate of the complainant to the opposite parties

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of AD Cards(2 Nos)

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Operator's Service Book of the vehicle