Date of filing:21.7.2012
Date of Disposal:4.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.134 OF 2013.
Between :
Dr.Kota Malyadri Naidu, S/o K.Kondaiah, Hindu, 47 years, R/o Adarsh Orthopedic Hospital, Sundaraiah Bhavan Road, Ongole.
….. Complainant.
And
1. M/s Volks Wagen Group Sales India Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, 3, North Avenue Level 3/4 , Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai.
2. M/s ATR Cars Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Manager, #48-10-22A, NH-5, Ramavarappadu Ring, Vijayawada.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 21.1.2014 in the presence of Sri B.Samba Siva Rao, Counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 Remained absent and Sri K.V.V.Parameswara Rao, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant purchased Volks Wagon Jetta Car from the 2nd opposite party and took delivery of the same on 1.3.2010. The warranty period is four years. Subsequently the complainant noticed that the alloy wheels are not in order and developed mis-alignment. The complainant informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party but they did not respond properly. While so, the complainant’s car met with minor accident and due to which the car right side door received dents and scratches. The complainant handed over his vehicle to O.Ps. for affecting repairs on 22.10.2011. The technical persons attended the car for check up and reported that all the four wheels are badly misaligned and are to be replaced and also informed that there is manufacturing defect in alloy wheels. The 2nd opposite party assured to repair within 10 days but contrary to the same the 2nd opposite party delivered the car on 26.11.2011 and charged a sum of Rs.94,848/- for alloy wheels and assured the complainant that after discussions with the 1st opposite party, they will pay back the amount. The 1st opposite party sold the vehicle with manufacturing defect, i.e., alloy wheels. The complainant got issued a legal notice stating all the facts and circumstances and demanding to refund the amount paid under protest to the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party issued a reply blaming the complainant for the defects arose in the vehicle. The 1st opposite party also received the notice and sought time for collection of data and enabling them to process the same. But till today they have not responded in any manner. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.94,848/- paid by him towards the cost of alloy wheels of the defect car, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay costs.
2. The 1st opposite party is called absent and the 2nd opposite party filed its version.
The version of the 2nd opposite party is in brief:
The 2nd opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the 2nd opposite party is an authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party in dealing with sales and services of Volkswagen cars with the different models. The complainant had purchased a new car from opposite parties as per the warranty terms and conditions and bill terms set out therein. The complainant himself perused and fully aware of the facts and understanding all terms and conditions laid down in the owner’s manual/service book and its warranty. The complainant handed over the car to the 2nd opposite party to replace the alloy wheels of the car but the 2nd opposite party and his staff categorically stated that alloy wheels have to be replace but the replacement does not come under the per-view of warranty terms. Agreeing the same the complainant handed over the car to the 2nd opposite party. After changing the alloy wheels, the 2nd opposite party delivered the car to the complainant by making a retail invoice dated 26.11.2011 after paying the charges of Rs.95,510/- including labour charges. The 2nd opposite party clearly mentioned in the said bill “customer share (%) 100”. The complainant agreed for the same knowing fully well the warranty terms will not applicable to his case and paid entire bill amount. The complainant took away the four old alloy wheels. The complainant ought to have pursue the insurance policy to cover up those damages subject to their discretion and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant without approaching the insurance company, file this complaint. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint, as the car met with an accident in the year 2011 thereby some parts of the car and the alloy wheels were damaged so when those parts like damage of (bends) alloy wheels will not at all under manufacturing defect. Since March, 2010 from the date of purchasing of the said car by the complainant to till date of its accident in the year 2011 no complaint was made by him with regard to the manufacturing defects of alloy wheels. The defects to the alloy wheels is not manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party the Service Manager B.Vasu gave his affidavit and no documents were filed.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
towards the complainant in collecting the alloy wheels charges even though there is manufacturing defects in alloy wheels?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand we, the Forum came to understand that the complainant purchased Volkswagan Jetta from the 2nd opposite party on 1.3.2010 and the warranty period is four years for the said car. Subsequently the complainant noticed that the alloy wheels are not in order and developed mis-alignment. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party. But they did not respond properly. The complainant did not place any document to show his above contentions. While the complainant’s car met with minor accident and the said car right side door received dents and scratches. Ex.A.5 shows the minor accident to the car while the auto and the said car are running in same direction. But no dents and scratches are not seen in the said photograph i.e., Ex.A.5. The complainant says that he handed over the car to the 2nd opposite party for affecting repairs and they informed the complainant that all the four wheels are badly misaligned and are to be replaced and also informed that there is manufacturing defects in four wheels. But there is no documentary evidence to say that the 2nd opposite party’s men informed that there is manufacturing defects in the four alloy wheel. The complainant did not obtain any technical expert report that the four alloy wheels have manufacturing defects. The 2nd opposite party delivered the car to the complainant on 26.11.2012 after effecting the repairs under retail invoice Ex.A.4 by receiving an amount of Rs.95,510/- for four wheels charges. The complainant says that the 2nd opposite party assured him that after discussions with the 1st opposite party, they will pay back the amount which they received from him. As there is no response from the opposite parties the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.2 dated 10.2.2012 to the opposite parties stating that the alloy wheels of his car are of material manufacturing defect and the said wheels have suffered misalignment. The complainant asked to refund the amount received by the 2nd opposite party towards costs of alloy wheels otherwise he will proceed to the court of law for appropriate relief. The 1st opposite party gave a reply Ex.A.1 dated 27.2.2012 stating that on receiving the complainants’ notice they are in the process of collecting information and documents from their dealer and request to give 2 to 3 weeks time to enable them to study and understand the case and to reply to the complainant’s notice. The 2nd opposite party gave reply through its advocate under Ex.A.3 dated 8.3.2012 denying the allegations of Ex.A.2 and stating that while before purchasing the car, the purchaser of the said car (complainant) he himself perused and fully aware of the facts by perfectly understanding all the terms and conditions particularly laid down in the owner manual/service book and its extended warranty if any. Soon after delivery of the said car he started using the said car undoubtedly with his free will, consent and pleasure up to his satisfaction. No discussions took place and no assurance was given in between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party for refund of the amount received by the 2nd opposite party for the four new alloy wheels cost and labour charges. Every car has warranty subject to the terms and conditions as clearly said in the owner’s manual/service book and its extended warranty if any from time to time but there are some parts like damage of glasses and bends of alloy wheels etc. caused due to the accidents or rash and careless driving in the hands of the customers or with their friends or their driver will not at all cover to give any warranty etc., for the damage caused by them. It is left to the concerned insurance company to cover up those damages subject to their discretion and terms and conditions laid down in the insurance policy. Since March, 2010 from the date of purchasing of the said car till date of its accident in the year of 2011 no complaint was made with regard to the manufacturing defects of alloy wheels. It is not at all possible for refund of the amount under afore mentioned circumstances. The 2nd opposite party made the same statement in his version.
7. We do not notice any warranty and manual/service book in the documents filed by both parties and we have also not noticed any protest made by the complainant in the bill issued by the 2nd opposite party charges charging for four alloy wheels as stated in the complaint. As there is no warranty card and service book we cannot say whether the opposite parties have to replace the alloy wheels without any charges whether there is manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels. No technical report was filed by the complainant to say that the alloy wheels have manufacturing defect. We cannot assume whether the alloy wheels are damaged or not. The complainant has to approach the insurance company for his car damage, if the terms and conditions of the policy apply to the accidental damage. Without any sufficient evidence we cannot say that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any relies as prayed.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Dr.Kota Malyadri Naidu D.W.1 B.Vasu, Service Manager,
Complainant of the 2nd opposite party,
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 27.02.2012 Letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A.2 10.02.2012 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.3 08.03.2012 Reply notice from the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.4 26.11.2011 Photocopy of retail invoice of the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.5 . . Photographs.
For the opposite parties:-
None.
PRESIDENT
