BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 319/2003 Filed on 16.08.2003

Dated : 30.12.2008

Complainants:

1. E.V. Sudhakaran, T.C 8/330(1), Krishnakripa, Alappuram Road, Thirumala, Tvpm.

Addl. Complainant:

2. S. Anitha, T.C 8/330(1), Krishnakripa, Alappuram Road, Thirumala, Tvpm.

(By adv. Emmanuel Chathanchira)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s T.V.S Ltd.,Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram

(By adv. R. Somanathan)

2. M/s Ind. Auto Ltd., Lal Bahadur Sastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai – 70.

(By adv. G.S. Kalkura)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 15.12.2008, the Forum on 30.12.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The 1^st complainant purchased a fiat Uno car (A/C) bearing Reg. No. KL-01 R 2071 in November 1999. The said car was registered in the name of 2^nd complainant. The 1^st opposite party is dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said car. The car was taken to their service centre on 4^th April 2003 for repair of air condition which was not functioning. On April 5^th evening the air conditioner was repaired and the car was brought back home with full payment of the bill as demanded by the 1^st opposite party. After 3 months, the A/C became again defective and the 1^st complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for repair. Then the 1^st opposite party demanded

full service charges and charges for filling gas as done in April 4. The complainant refused to pay because for the same complaint service charges and expenses for filling gas was already paid. As per the complainant, it is because of negligence and lapse in checking the gas leak properly the same complaint occurred. Moreover every time the car cannot be spared for two days in the service centre for repair because the complainant badly require the car every day. The car was brought back without the problem attended and rectified. Complaint was brought before the notice of service engineer of 2^nd

opposite party, but they also failed to rectify the defect of A/C at their own cost. Hence this complaint.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version. The 1^st opposite party denied the allegations against them. The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 17.11.1999. There

was no complaint about the vehicle till the complaint was brought to the opposite party on 04.04.2003 for attention of air conditioner fitted in the vehicle. He wanted attention to the work immediately stating that he is always in need of the car. The 1^st opposite party informed him that the entire A/C system has

to be attended to for getting the best result. But since he insisted for immediate delivery, just filling A/C gas and replacement of the bent pipe were done by which the complaint reported were rectified and delivered the car on 05.04.2003. At the time of delivery the service engineer reminded the complainant that a detailed examination of the entire A/C system is necessitated for which two days time at least is required. The service engineer of the opposite party reminded the complainant on 25^th July 2003. On

05.08.2003, the complainant was again informed to bring the car to the opposite party on prior appointment to carry out the repairs on charge basis. But the complainant never brought the vehicle to the opposite party. The opposite party also stated that the warranty of the vehicle was over and any attention to the vehicle can be had only against payment. The 1^st opposite party also stated that the

vehicle was taken delivery on 05.04.2003 after recording the full satisfaction of the work carried out by the opposite party. They also allege that the complainant had rushed to this Forum without caring to sent the vehicle for attention as intimated to him. As per the opposite party there is no deficiency in service. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The 2^nd opposite party also supported the contentions of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party

stated that the complainant does not have a case regarding manufacturing defect. The vehicle is far beyond the period of warranty. They further submit that the vehicle was delivered in the year 1999 and the same was extensively used by the complainant. The present complaint is barred by limitation. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the 1^st complainant is the husband of the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant is the owner of Fiat Uno car bearing KL-01 R 2071. The 1^st complainant filed affidavit for and on behalf of 2^nd complainant and he was examined as PW1 and 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. The 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit to support the contentions in the version. In the

complaint, the complainant has no case regarding manufacturing defect. The complainant himself admitted that they purchased the car in 1999 and they also admitted the A/C of the car was functioning till July 2003. The car has only one year warranty. The defect in dispute occurred on 04.04.2003 and the opposite party repaired and delivered the car on 05.04.2003. The complainant admitted that he had received the vehicle with full satisfaction on 05.04.2003 and he had paid the repairing charge without any protest. The complainant alleges that after 3 months the complaint again repeated and the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party through Ext. P5 notice. The 1^st opposite party sent reply to the

complainant that was marked as Ext. P6. Through this letter they informed the complainant to bring the car for detailed examination for attending the leak in A/C system which required two days time. And also they informed that prior appointment to be fixed for carrying out the repair on charge basis for entire satisfaction. But the complainant did not turn up to bring the car to the opposite party and they repaired the vehicle in a private workshop. The complainant alleges that for that repair he was forced to spend Rs. 980/- for the same. And also the complainant alleges that due to the deficient service of opposite party the complainants were forced to use the A/C car without A/C facility.

In this case we have carefully examined the documents and evidence adduced by the complainants. But we cannot find any deficiency from the side of opposite parties in this case. From Ext. P6 document it is seen that the 1^st opposite party is always ready to repair the car. The alleged defects were occurred

not within the warranty period. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the repairing charges. On 05.04.2003, the complainant paid the repairing charge and had taken the vehicle with full satisfaction. After 3 months the vehicle again became defective. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party and opposite party replied that they are ready to repair it on charge. But the complainant was not ready to pay charge. It is the settled position that after the warranty period all the repair works will be done on charge basis. The complainant has no evidence to prove that the defect was in furtherance of the first repair. And also there is no evidence that the vehicle has manufacturing defect. There is no commission report to prove the allegation against the opposite party. And also the complainant has admitted that he had purchased the vehicle in the year 1999 and till 2003 he has been using the vehicle without any A/C complaint.

From the above mentioned discussion, we have concluded that there is no deficient service from the side of opposite parties. The complainant has failed to prove his allegation against the opposite parties. We find that there is no reason for allowing the complaint since the allegation is baseless. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th December 2008.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 319/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sudhakaran

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of certificate of registration book of vehicle no.

KL-01 R 2071

P2 - Receipt of cash Bill (1411) dated 23.10.2000.

P3 - Receipt of Rs. 1025/-dated 26.01.2002.

P4 - Receipt of cash Bill (1411) dated 05.04.2003.

P5 - Letter dated 31.07.2003.

P6 - Letter dated 05.08.2003 issued by the opposite party to the

complainant.

P7 - Receipt of Rs. 980/- dated 23.12.2003.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT