BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 05/09/2011

Date of Order : 13/02/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

C.C. No. 479/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. On 30-09-2010, the complainant purchased a Fiat Punto car from the 3^rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The vehicle was registered as KL 39 C 2465. Soon after the purchase, the vehicle has complaints of shivering of steering and severe jerking while braking. The complainant brought the vehicle for repairs to the 3^rd opposite party thrice, but it was not rectified. On 31-01-2011, the vehicle hit a stone damaging the radiator and the front bumper. The complainant had to keep the vehicle at the 3^rd opposite party till 11-02-2011 for the reason that spare parts were not in stock. The 3^rd opposite party failed to provide a stand by vehicle and so the complainant had to hire a vehicle under rent a car scheme by spending Rs. 6,000/-. Since the previous defects of shivering/jerking persisted, on 01-07-2011, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to get if rectified. They returned the car only on 12-07-2011, but the defects persisted. In spite of repeated repairs, the 3^rd opposite party failed to rectify the same. The vehicle has been garaged with the 3^rd opposite party for 23 days due to non-availability of sufficient spares. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 18,000/- towards compensation on that account. The complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences and difficulties due to the defects of the vehicle and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the same. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 68,000/- and also to rectify the defects of the vehicle and on failure to do so replace the vehicle with a new one together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 3^rd opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Since, the vehicle was purchased for business purpose. When the vehicle has given for 1^st service on 01-12-2010 a complaint that “brakes vibrate/shudder” was raised. Though, there was no defect the brake disc was removed and installed under warranty. When the vehicle had covered 6216 Kms. brake calipers were removed and installed. On 31-01-2011, the complainant brought the vehicle for accident repairs. It took 11 days to complete the processing of the insurance claim and for repairs. That cannot be termed as a deficiency on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. On 11-05-2011, the complaint of “brake pedal squeaks when depressed” was rectified. On 01-07-2011, the complainant brought the vehicle alleging complaints of “excessive tyre road noise and brakes vibrate/shudder”. Due to the rash and negligent driving, the hub and bearing was damaged. Though the same did not cover the warranty with the concurrence of the manufacturer, the 3^rd opposite party replaced the same within a reasonable time and returned the car on 12-07-2011. The vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect as claimed by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed for.

3. The service of notice of the 1^st opposite party was deemed to have served under Section 28 A (3) of the Consumer Protection Act. In spite of service of notice from this Forum, the 2^nd opposite party did not respond to the same for reasons of their own. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked. The witness for the 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 68,000/- from the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defects of the vehicle rectified or to get replacement of the vehicle?

4. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, he is an insurance agent and he purchased the car for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Uncontroverted. The contention of the 3^rd opposite party goes.

6. Point Nos. ii & iii. :- According to the complainant, time and again he had to approach the 3^rd opposite party to get the defects of the vehicle rectified. The complainant maintains that in spite of the repeated repairs of the vehicle the defects persisted. During evidence, DW1 the witness for the 3^rd opposite party admitted that on 15-01-2011, they rectified the defects of the brake of the vehicle and they replaced the brake calipers and since the defect persisted, on 11-05-2011 they replaced the brake disc with spindle. Again on 01-07-2011, they replaced the front right wheel hub and also the wheel knuckle assembly with bearing. The complainant contended that despite repeated repairs the opposite parties could not rectify the defects wholly. We are not to accept the said contention since no expert opinion is on record to substantiate the same. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties failed to provide a standby vehicle to the complainant during the period, when the vehicle was garaged. The 3^rd opposite party stated that they are not to provide a standby vehicle, since there is no manufacturing defect. The repeated recurring defects of the brake system go to show that the same suffers from manufacturing defect, which necessarily have not been rectified or satiated. In which case, the 3^rd opposite party ought to have provided a standby vehicle to the complainant in which they failed. Naturally, the complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences during the period and also had to hire a taxi. The complainant produced Exts. A6 and A7 to prove the same. We are not to accept the same, since the same has been produced in this Forum highly belatedly. Irrefutably, the consumer has been put to unthinkable inconveniences unnecessarily, which calls for a making up for. There is nothing before us to show that categorically the complainant has proved that he has had to spend the amount which he has claimed. However, with due reverence to his profession, we do not refrain from his claim for compensation though not fully. We fix it as Rs. 10,000/-.

7. Point No. iv. :- The complainant had to approach this Forum to get his grievances redressed, which the opposite parties could well have avoided. However, this Forum appreciates the awareness of the consumer to have knocked at the doors of this Forum. If aggrieved it is our fervent hope that others, so aggrieved would follow suit for solace.

8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards compensation and costs of the proceedings respectively.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========