BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.956/2011 against C.C.No.490/2010 District Forum-II,  HYDERABAD.

Between

Sri N.Anil Chandra Gowd S/o.B.Narayan

Gowd, Age 62 years, Occ:SAP consultant

R/o.Plot No.710, Rd 36, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad-33.                                                            ..Appellant/

Complainant

                And

1.  M/s Fortune Ford, represented by its AGM (Fin.)

    (Regd.Office) 5-9-171, Chapel Road, Abids,

     Hyderabad-1.

     Workshop at 7-2-1851,

     Fatehbagh, Opp.BOC Near Moosapet flyover

     Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-18.

2. M/s Ford India, Head Office,

   Corporate office: Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,

   Via S.P. Koil Chengaipattu, Chennai-603 204

   Ph 044-27454375, 24551452                                      ..Respondents/

                                                                                Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant               :  Mr.B.C.Goud

Counsel for the Respondents          :  Mr R.Pampapathi Reddy-R1

                                                     M/s.Kochar & Co.-R2

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

          AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in  C.C.No.490/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant  preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, owner of Ford Ikon No.AP9AF8433 since May, 2000 had been using the vehicle  and getting it repaired as and when required.  The complainant submitted that in May, 2009, the vehicle stopped midway on the flyover opposite to Begumpet and he called opposite party No.1 but as there was no immediate response, he called one Shankar from his house who handed over the vehicle to Fortune Ford representatives and who had towed the vehicle to their workshop to identify the problem.  The complainant submitted that two or three days thereafter, the representatives of the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant over phone that it would cost Rs.22,000/- approximately for effecting repairs and he accepted the same, and requested them to go ahead and informed them to keep the vehicle ready as his daughter was coming shortly from United States.  The complainant submitted that after his daughter landed in Hyderabad in June, he asked his daughter to take delivery of the vehicle from the representatives of opposite party workshop at Kukatpally  and during the test run, the vehicle stopped abruptly near Ameerpet and therefore his daughter returned home without taking the vehicle and requested to attend to the repairs promptly.  The complainant submitted that the opposite parties did not deliver the vehicle and the customer Manager, Ms.Uma along with Imran visited the complainant’s house along with a proposal for effecting repairs and that it would cost a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on which the complainant informed that the 10 year old car value itself is around Rs.1,50,000/- and expressed that he could not afford additional cost of Rs.1,20,000/-. The complainant further submitted that had the cost of repairs been informed earlier, he would not have agreed and complained to Ford India by e-mail which was acknowledged by customer care on 22-9-2009. The complainant submitted that in the month of October, 2009, the complainant contacted several people of opposite parties 1 and 2 and explained the deficiency in service for which concern No.8852067 was assigned.  The complainant submitted that he was not physically present in Hyderabad during the month of October, 2009 and would be back from Hong Kong by 17th November, 2009 and informed the said fact to opposite parties and requested them to contact the complainant over email.  The complainant submitted that on 13h November, 2009, one Mr.Jai of Ford company came with a new theory in his email that the vehicle was earlier repaired from a non-ford authorized workshop and those un-authorized people  used non-genuine parts and therefore asked the complainant to approve repairs at an additional cost for delivering the vehicle to his satisfaction.  The complainant further submitted that all of a sudden on 24th November, Ms.Uma informed him by email that the vehicle is ready for road test along with their technical team and requested to take delivery and the vehicle was taken for a road test on 7th December along with Mr.Narasimha, opposite parties driver, besides technical staff and by the time the vehicle reached home after the road test, fumes were coming out from the engine with all kinds of noises.   The complainant submitted that this was informed to the customer Manager, Ms.Uma, and requested to resolve the problem for which another  number 8997054 was assigned.  The complainant submitted that on 21st  December, one Mr.Sriram from Ford India came up with another reason stating that the vehicle was driven without coolant which resulted in overheating of the engine and suggested the complainant to do overhauling to the engine for which he did not accept and finally the vehicle was towed back to the workshop of the opposite parties.  Alleging all this amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant seeks direction to the opposite parties to release his car in absolute working condition and to grant damages for mental agony and costs.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version resisting the complaint.  They admitted that on 5-6-2009 they received a break down call and the said call was immediately attended to and the vehicle was towed to the workshop.  On 06-6-2009 morning, a break down vehicle complaint was registered and attended for inspection and found that the vehicle was repaired by unauthorised persons in local workshops and the same was intimated vide customer information sheet dated 06-6-2009.  Thereafter a repair order was opened temporarily running the vehicle at the request of the complainant with minor repairs without attending to major repairs and an estimate was prepared on 20-6-2009 which was agreed by the complainant and collected by the representative of the complainant. Thereafter the vehicle was picked up by the complainant’s representative on 20-6-2009 duly satisfied with the works attended and the complainant’s representative stated that the amount will be paid at home and the representatives of the opposite parties accompanied but the complainant has not made payment stating that the problem persisting and hence the vehicle was brought to the garage.  Thereafter inspite of repeated calls, the complainant has not responded and in the month of September/October, 2009 came on phone call and then they stated that until and unless major repairs are attended, the vehicle will not be fit and informed that it would cost Rs.1,20,000/- for which the complainant informed them that the value of the vehicle itself would be Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter there was exchange of emails.  The opposite parties also informed the company about the real facts and about using of spurious local made unauthorized parts by the complainant and the complainant getting the service done from local workshop and even during the month of November, 2009, the Ford India clearly intimated the said fact to the complainant as per annexure-6 filed by the complainant and submitted that the complainant’s behaviour was indifferent and that the complainant was neither prepared to take the vehicle back nor was agreeing for 100% repairs.  They further submitted that on 23rd November, they sent an email to the complainant requesting to take delivery of the vehicle by clearing the bills but there was no response and the complainant wanted the vehicle to be taken for road test in December, 2009 to know whether huge repairs as suggested by opposite parties are required or not and they have clearly demonstrated by  road testing that spurious parts were used by the complainant which must be replaced.  They submitted that these facts are suppressed by the complainant and the complaint was filed with false allegations and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 to B13 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        Both sides filed written arguments.

        It is the appellant/complainant’s case that he purchased a Ford vehicle purchased in May, 2000 which stopped on the road in the first week of June,  2009 on the flyover and he immediately called the representative of Fortune Ford and the vehicle was handed over to them.  After 2-3 days, opposite party representatives called the complainant and orally informed him that the repairs cost approximately Rs.22,000/-, for which the complainant agreed and requested them to deliver the vehicle at the earliest as his daughter was coming from U.S. and he needed the vehicle during her stay in Hyderabad.    When he was informed that the vehicle was ready, since his daughter is a mechanical engineer, she wanted to test run the vehicle and in the presence of the representative of the opposite party, the vehicle was test run, but it stopped abruptly and they asked the opposite party to deliver the vehicle after duly repairing it.  Thereafter their customer Manager, Ms.Uma informed the complainant that the repairs would cost an additional Rs.1,20,000/- for which the complainant did not agree as it is a ten year old car whose sale value is around Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant also sent an email on 19-9-2009 (Ex.A1).  Ex.A2 and A3 are also emails between the complainant and the opposite party and the complainant was given a concern number 8852067.  Thereafter vide Ex.A4, a reply was sent to the complainant stating that they would repair the vehicle to the complainant’s satisfaction provided the complainant gives the necessary approval to carry out the repairs.  In this Ex.A4, the opposite party is silent about the amount. The complainant vide Ex.A5 dated 13-11-2009 stated that the opposite party ought to have informed them about the estimate of Rs.1,20,000/- at the initial stage itself which was not done.   The complainant in his reply to Ex.A6 sent Ex.A7 email that the vehicle was emanating noise and fumes were coming from the hood and did not accept the vehicle for which the opposite party replied vide Ex.A9 stating that the vehicle was driven without coolant and that their dealer has suggested complete engine overhauling and only after the complainant’s approval the overhauling needs to be done.  The complainant vide Exs.A10 and A11 emails requested the opposite party to give him the original job cards.  The contention that the complainant’s daughter has signed the customer information sheet, the invoice and the gate pass have been denied by the complainant on the ground that his daughter had landed in Delhi only on 10-6-2009 whereas the customer information sheet is dated 06-6-2009.

        Ex.B1 is the repair order dated 06-6-2009 wherein the estimation amount was given at Rs.21,610.02.   Based on this estimate, the complainant has given his approval.  It is an admitted fact that the vehicle is 10 years old and is not covered by warranty and therefore the terms of warranty do not come into the picture.    A brief perusal of the documents filed by the opposite party does not show that a written estimate for Rs.1,20,000/- was given to the complainant and an approval was taken from him. We find force in the contention of the complainant that he was informed that the repairs would cost Rs.22,000/- as evidenced under Ex.B1, wherein the estimate was given as Rs.21,610.02, because the vehicle is a 10 year old vehicle,  whose market value will not be more than Rs.1,50,000/-.  This establishes that the complainant was given an estimate of approximately  Rs.22,000/- and thereafter after the test run, the additional cost of Rs.1,20,000/- was suggested to him to which he has not agreed  as it is a ten year old car.  A brief perusal of the communication i.e. the emails between the complainant and the opposite parties clearly shows that the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party that fumes were coming from the hood and the engine was emanating noises during the test run and when the opposite parties representatives were present during the test run, there are no substantial reasons as to why the car was being run without a coolant.  It is the opposite parties main contention that the fumes from the hood are because of lack of coolant during the test run.  Secondly without an approved estimate, the opposite party cannot now demand an additional cost of Rs.1,20,000/-, the details of the said estimate have also not been filed.  Taking into consideration the equities and also the fact that the car is a 10 year old car lying with the opposite party No.1, we are of the considered opinion that the repairs as promised in Ex.B1 are to be carried out and the complainant is directed to pay the amount and take back his vehicle within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order together with compensation of Rs.15,000/- as the vehicle was lying with the opposite party since  the year 2009 i.e. more than 3 years for which period the complainant could not use the vehicle.  We also award costs of Rs.5,000/-.

        In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to repair the vehicle as promised in Ex.B1 and collect the amount estimated in Ex.B1 from the complainant and give back the vehicle to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order together with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.                

                                                                                Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                             Dt.29-11-2012