SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing opposite parties to replace the vehicle with new one or re-pay the price collected from the complainant with compensation and cost of the proceedings of this case alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In brief the facts of the case are that complainant on 17/12/2020 purchased brand New Tata Altroz car from OP No.3 on payment of total 10,54,310/- Registered a KL-58-A-D-4954. It is submitted that the complainant was maintaining the vehicle as per service manual and doing periodical service from OP No.2. The vehicle was working for a period of 3 months without any complaint and free service also conducted as per service manual. Thereafter car had complaint of low pulling. It is submitted that while car was in running suddenly warning light glows and vehicle speed reduces due to low pulling. Complainant brought the vehicle to the second OP on 17/03/2021. OP effected necessary repairs and replacement and vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant. OP assured that the same complaint will not occur in future. It is submitted that the same complaint occurred on 13/07/2021 and 12/08/2021. Again OP effected necessary repairs and replacement and vehicle taken delivery by the complainant on a promise made by the OPs that the above complaint will not raise again to the vehicle.
It is submitted that on 16/09/2021 while the care proceeding towards Kozhikode to attend the hospital, vehicle had the same complaint of low pulling and warning light glows with excessive exhaust omission, accumulation of fog inside the car. Complainant was put to great hardship and loss, same how the vehicle was brought back by the complainant with the help of motor mechanic.
It is submitted that he vehicle is having major manufacturing and mechanical defect which OPs failed to rectify in spite of repeated repairs and replacement. Complainant is unable to use the vehicle due to recurring repeated complaint. All this difficulties and loss is caused due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service reentered by the OPs. Complainant approached the 1st OP to redress his lawful grievances found futile due to hostile attitude of OPs. Legal notice addressed to OP No.1 and 2 was replied by OP No.2 along with false allegations which are denied by this complainant. Car is hypothecated to sundaram finance and complainant will have to repay the loan installments. Hence this complaint.
OPs filed version. OP No.1 contended that the complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. This OP has unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings. It is pertinent to state here that the relationship between this OP and the second OP is of principal to principal and this OP is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transaction between the complainant and the 2nd OP. It is submitted that the car, purchased by the complainant, is of the highest quality and the complainant had take delivery of the car, after being satisfied with its condition and its performance. It is submitted that the said car was delivered after carrying out the pre-delivery Inspection (in short, PDI) by the dealer. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the case without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the car in question.
OP1 further submits that the allegations of the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the car in the absence of an expert report, miserably fails and the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed. Further submitted that the complainant had booked for and subsequently taken delivery of a TATA Altrozs car after personally inspecting the same and being fully satisfied with the car. The statements of the complainant that she had been maintaining the car as per the operators’ Manual and carrying out the periodic services without fail are not admitted and the complaint is put to strict proof of the same. This OP is instructed to state during the period 15/02/2021 to 08/08/2021 whenever the complainant had taken her car to the workshop of the 2nd/3rd OP voicing a complaint with the car the service personnel in the workshop of the 2nd/3rd OP had looked into such complaints and carried out the necessary repairs under warranty. On each of the occasion the complainant had taken delivery of her car after personally inspecting the same and being fully satisfied with the repairs. There is also no merit or basis in the allegation of the complainant that the pulling of the car was low. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect to the car as alleged. The complainant has raised the said allegation without any bonafides. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled the reliefs sought for in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
OPs 2 and 3 filed joint version stating that it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a Tata Altroz car from OP3 on 17/12/2020 with the registration No.KL58 AD 4954. OP 2 is the authorized dealer and service, OP 3 is the branch office cum show room. On 15/02/2021 the complainant had brought the vehicle before the OP for the 1st free service, by that time the vehicle has covered distance of 2533 Kms. The 1st free service and it was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and there was no mechanical complaint raised or alleged by the complainant at that time. There after the complainant bought the vehicle on 17/03/2021 for running repair. On that day after through checkup by the technicians the injector absently and the fuel filter assembly were not performing properly and that may be the reason for getting proper pulling of the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. As a jestor of goodwill and at the request of the complainant those parts were replaced by the OPs as per the customer satisfaction of the complainant. On 13/07/2021 for the 2nd free service by that time the vehicle has covered a distance of 6797 Kms and it has also done by the OP 2 with the complete satisfaction of the complainant and on that day also the complainant has to raised any allegation. Thereafter on 08/08/2021 vehicle again brought to OP 2 for some running repairs by that time the vehicle has covered distance of 7279 Kms, and my client done those repairs and replaced certain parts also. All the works were done by the OP 2 towards the complainant under the warranty and it has also satisfied by the complainant. After these repairs the complainant had never approached the OP 2 for any service allegation or any defects. Further stated that the allegations in the complaint that on 16/09/2021 the vehicle showed some complaint as earlier and accumulation of fog inside the car are absolutely false. It is also that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defects and there is no basis or merits in demanding the replacement of the vehicle which is having any manufacturing defects and which is performing perfectly. It is also pleaded that if there is any defect on the vehicle, they are ready to rectify the said defect. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of this OP 2 and 3. Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The husband of the complainant filed his chief affidavit and was examined as Pw1 Ext. A1 to A5 were marked. Pw1 was cross-examined for the OPs. OPs have not adduced their own evidence.
After that the learned for the complainant and the learned counsel for OPs 2 and 3 filed their argument notes.
As per the complainant the remedy is either to replace the vehicle or return the value of the vehicle as she took the vehicle to the service centre of OP No.3, ie OP No.2 several times for repairs but as the defect in the car could not be removed, on 16/09/2021, which the car proceeding towards Kozhikode to attend the hospital, vehicle had the same complaint of low pulling and warning light glows with excessive exhaust commission, accumulation of fog inside the car and the car was brought back by him with the help of motor mechanic. It is also stated by the complainant that as the defect in the vehicle could not be removed in spite of repeated repairs and replacement, he is unable to use the vehicle due to repeated complaint.
On the other hand OPs 2 and 3 have submitted that the 1st service of the vehicle was done on 15/02/2021 to the satisfaction of the complainant and there was no mechanical complaint raised or alleged by the complainant at that time. Thereafter the complainant brought the vehicle on 17/03/2021 for running repairs low pulling on that day after through checkup by the technicians the injector assembly and fuel filter assembly were not performing properly. It is submitted that at the request of the complainant those parts were replaced by the OPs. Further on 13/07/2021 for the 2nd free service, and on that day complainant has not raised any allegation.
There after on 08/08/2021, vehicle was again brought to OP 2 for some running repairs. At that time, the vehicle was covered distance of 7279 KMs and the mechanics has done the repair work and replaced certain parts also. OP 2 further contended that after these repairs the complainant had never approached the OP No.2 for any service allegation or any defects. OPs denied the allegation of the complainant about the same defect happened on 16/09/2021 when she went to Kozhikode and further denied the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defects.
During cross-examination of Pw1, the learned counsel of OPs 2 and 3 put question that in page .2 “കോഴിക്കോട് 16/09/2021 ന് പോയപ്പോള് വാഹനത്തിന് തകരാറ് വന്നു എന്നും ആയത് റിപ്പയര് ചെയ്തു എന്നു കാണിക്കുന്നതിന് രേഖകള് ഉണ്ടോ? രേഖകള് ഇല്ല. Further stated ഇപ്പോള് വരെ വാഹനം 23000 കിലോമീറ്റര് ഓടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. Further in page No.3 വാഹനത്തിന് നിര്മ്മാണത്തകരാറ് ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് കാണിക്കുന്നതിന് വല്ല നടപടിയും എടുത്തിരുന്നോ? ഇല്ല. നടപടികള് എടുക്കാന് തയ്യാറാണ്.
In the normal course if any defect is found in the vehicle within the term stipulated in warranty obligation, then the obligation of the company is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part of the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. Her OP1 submitted that as a manufacturer of the vehicle they gave instruction to OPs 2 and 3 to carry out necessary repairs under warranty and from Ext.A4 series shows that OPs 2 and 3 had done necessary repair work or replace the defective parts with new parts at no cost to the owner. It is also revealed that complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the vehicle in dispute is having manufacturing defect. Further for establishing the incident on 16/09/2021 as alleged by the complainant, no piece of evidence produced from the side of complainant. Moreover, no service invoice produced from the side of complainant side to show that the vehicle became defective and done repair work after 08/08/2021. Further Pw1 deposed that വാഹനം വാങ്ങിയതില് പിന്നീട് വാഹനത്തിന് ആവശ്യമുള്ള rectification നും replacement ഉം warrantyയും ചെയ്ത് കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയാണ്.
Here complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and defect of the vehicle still existing. Further not proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties.
In the result complaint fails and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts
A1 – Car identification record
A2 – Lawyer notice
A3 – Reply notice
A4(series) – Tax invoice 6 in numbers
A5(series) – Job slip 2 in numbers
Pw1-Harish K- Witness of complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
