O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he purchased a car as detailed in the complaint from Op. That he left the car for first service on 16/11/2009 with Op with complaints of all the doors making noise while operating, left hand suspensions noise, front power window glass making noise and RAC. After few hours after leaving the car with the Op he received a call from them informing that washer fluid tank is damaged requiring replacement costing Rs.1,200/-. That the vehicle was since undergoing free service period within the warranty period, he refused to pay Rs.1,200/- as demanded. On 23/11/2009 he made enquiry with the Op to ascertain service status and was shocked to know that there was damage to the front left side underneath the wiper water tank and the channels bend due to external impact and same would cost Rs.10,000/-. Then he complained to General Motors requesting them to interfere by interacting Op by rectifying the defect. E-mails were exchanged. But nothing came out. That the alleged external impact was due to deliberate act and did not happen at his end. The Op thereby not replacing the damaged water tank free of cost has caused deficiency in his service. That the Op delivered back his car on 04/12/2009 with aforesaid deficiency in their service. Therefore, has prayed for a direction to the Op to do free service of his vehicle, to direct the Op to replace fluid water tank with free of cost, to rectify the damage caused to the left side underneath water tank and channels bend, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost.<br /> <br /> Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version denying all the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant took the car to them on 16/11/2009 for re-assurance check up and not for free service. It is further stated when the car was delivered to the complainant it was checked and was found functioning properly and when the car was taken for reassurance they checked and found leakage from the plastic tank called the wiper washer fluid tank which was due to damage of the tank caused due to bending of channels to which tank is fixed. It had happened due to external impact hitting a hump or size stone while driving at high speeds. As damage had taken place much prior to 16/11/2009 and the impact area had corroded. Then they contacted the complainant on 16/11/2009 itself and informed him about damage and requested the complainant to give approval to carry out the repairs on payment basis but the complainant did not give approval but insisted that repairs to be carried out free of cost. Car was ready for delivery on 16/11/2009 but the complainant did not take the car despite intimation dated 20/11/2009, 21/11/2009, 23/11/2009 and 04/12/2009. But on 04/12/2009 as demanded by the complainant, car was delivered to him at his instance and stated that no deficiency is caused by them and damage was due to the act of the complainant himself and thereby denying the liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the service manager of Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has filed copy of job card and copies of few e-mails that were exchanged with copy of invoice. Op has produced the original job card and also copies of e-mails and also few photographs of two cars. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op and his men caused deficiency in not replacing fluid tank free of cost?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: In the course of enquiry, the counsel for the complainant filed interrogatories which are replied by the Op. On consideration of these materials placed before us we do not find any dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle and other allied issues. The grievance of the complainant as narrated above is that when he left his car with Op on 16/11/2009 to attend to certain repairs the men of the Op at their end have caused damage to the underneath wiper water tank and channels due to external impact and stated that the Op has not replaced that water tank but demanding charges for replacement which amounts to deficiency. Op has not denied receipt of the car for check up. Op called that check up as reassurance. Where as the complainant say that it was given for service. As found from the job card produced, we find that the complainant had requested the Op to attend to all door making noise while operating, carry out, RAC check, front left hand suspension noise and to check front power window glass making noise. The Op contended to had done this checkups and kept the vehicle ready for delivery on 16/11/2009 itself. The complainant in this job card has made note as if these 4 checks were not done. The damage to wiper tank as detected by the Op appears was not in the knowledge of the complainant therefore he did not inform the Op to repair that. But the Op has stated that they while checking the vehicle noticed the defect in the wiper water tank and the bend in the channels due to external impact and further stated that they informed the complainant on the same day. But the complainant contrary to this has contended as if damage has been caused by the men of the Op when vehicle was left with them but the complainant has failed to substantiate the same.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel appearing for the Op produced photographs of the complainant’s vehicle indicating the damage part of the water tank and channels and photographs of another vehicle containing similar parts. The learned counsel argued that these photographs were taken on 16/11/2009 itself that the damaged portion is seen as corroded and submitted that corroding of that part is indicative of the fact that impact had happened long back and not either on 16/11/2009 or at any time during that day. The complainant has not disputed the correctness of these photographs. Coronations of the damaged part would speak that occurrence had taken place much earlier to 16/11/2009 and it do not lie in the mouth of the complainant that impact to the water tank and channel had been caused by Op men either on 16/11/2009 or on any day immediately thereafter. If that had happened on 16/11/2009 it could not have corroded. Therefore, even otherwise the complainant in our view has not substantiated that damage to the water tank and channels was caused by the Op and their liability to replace it.<br /> <br /> No doubt, damage and leaving of the vehicle for repair was within the warranty period but if any damage to any part of the vehicle is done by the complainant then he cannot demand for replacement free of cost. Therefore necessarily complainant cannot escape of paying the repair cost. Further, on going through the entire materials placed before us, we are of the view, that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the Op as he is within his rights in refuse to replace a part free of cost if damage had been caused by the complainant. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 08th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />