DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of May 2023
Filed on: 30/09/2014
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C No. 737/2014
COMPLAINANT
P.C.Thomas, S/o.P E Thomas, Pavadasseril House, 37/1383B Panorama Residencey, Kumaranasan Road, Kathrikadavu, Pin-682 017. Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Sri.Cijin Thomas, S/o.PC Thomas.
(Adv. George Cherian Karipparambil, Karipparambil Associates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 036)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- M/s.General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., having Regd Office at Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Dist.Panchmahals, Gujarat, Pin-389 351
- M/s.Geeyem Motors (P) Ltd., 11/336, NH Bye Pass, Nettoor P.O., Cochin-682 034
(Op. 1 rep. by Adv.Binu Mathew, Door No.66/1302 A, Mathew Paily Road, Behind Town Hall, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi-682 018)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant states that the 1st opposite party in this case is manufacturer of the Chevrolet Beat Diesel variant 1.0 LS car and the 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1st opposite party. The complainant purchased the car from the 2nd opposite party on 06.01.2012 for Rs.4,66,021/- as per invoice No.201103461 dated 04.01.2012. The car is used by son of the complainant and the complainant is represented by Sri.Cijin Thomas who is the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant.
The opposite party offered 3 year warranty or 1,00,000 kms whichever occurs earlier. The car covered only 29,500 kms till date the complaint filed. On 03.10.2012 at Hubli Town, the complainant attempted to start the car, but it could not be started and noticed that the ignition key on “on” position the tachometer senses the engine RPM as 800 further on cranking the car could not be started. When the car was kept idle for about half an hour and thereafter when attempted to start the car and the car started. Hence the car was taken to M/s.Bellad Enterprises (P) Ltd the authorized service centre of the first opposite party. M/s. Bellad Enterprises (P) Ltd on checking the car with Chevrolet diagnostic software informed that no fault codes were found and hence it could a loose contact and accordingly they removed and refixed the couplers in the engine room. The complainant stated that thereafter on 03.03.2013 at Kolhapur, Maharashtra, again the same defects were occurred. The occurrence of the complaint became frequent and therefore, the complainant approached authorized service centre M/s. ARAS Motors (P) Ltd., and they replaced cluster assembly meter of the car on 13/06/2014. The complainant further states that while Cijin Thomas was plying the car from Madurai to Trichy, the car broke down near Trichy and the car was taken to the authorized service centre and found that the cause of break down as defect in the Engine Control Module Program and accordingly they calibrated the Engine Control Module Programme. The complainant alleges that the recurring defects occurred in the car is due its manufacturing defects. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking for issuing orders to the opposite party to replace the defective car with a new car of the same model and award compensation of Rs.2 lakh along with other reliefs.
2) Notice
Upon notices from this Commission, the opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
- Version of the opposite parties.
For the convenience the version filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties considered as together.
The 1st opposite party states that the obligation under this new vehicle warranty is limited to the repair of the new motor vehicle at no charge by the Chevrolet authorized retailer. For parts replaced during such repair the same warranty applies until the end of the new vehicle warranty period as stipulated or warranty claims expire at the end of the warranty period and therefore the 1st opposite party is bound only to repair/rectify the defective parts of the vehicle and the 1st opposite party stated that the Forum has been basically formed to dispose cases being straight jacket in nature and this complaint culled out that lengthy evidence is required in order to prove the claims of the complainant.
The 2nd opposite party agreed that the complainant had purchased the Chevrolet Beat Diesel variant 1.0 LS car from the 2nd opposite party and the data regarding the repairs made on the car is not available with the 2nd opposite party.The 2nd opposite party is impleaded in the complaint only to get the territorial jurisdiction and there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.The 2nd opposite party is not even in a position to offer any comments regarding the manufacturing defects of the vehicle.
-
Complainant filed documents which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A21 and details are appended along with the order.
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
(ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
7) Point Nos (i) to (iii)
On going through the documents produced by the complainant and also on the basis of the version filed by the opposite party the Commission came to the following inferences that the opposite party had admitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 06/01/2012 which is having 3 years warranty or 1 lakh km which was earlier. In the instance case the vehicle had completed only 29,500 km. and hence the vehicle is still within the warranty period. On verification of Exbt.A1 and A4 it is clear that the vehicle was repaired on different dates and the vehicle had not been serviced by the opposite party in satisfactory condition and hence there is deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party. Therefore point No. (i) is proved in favour of the complainant.
Since point No. (i) is proved in favour of the complainant, the following order are issued.
ORDER
- The opposite party shall repair the vehicle of the complainant into a satisfactory driving condition at free of cost.
- The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant towards compensation.
- An amount of Rs.10,000/- shall pay by the opposite party as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The above orders shall be complied with within, 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amounts ordered above vide 1 and 2 shall attract interest @5.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 27th day May 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: power of attorney
Exhibit A-2: Bill No.201103461 dated 04.01.2012 for Rs.4,66,021/- issued by the 2nd opposite party
Exbt. A-3 copy of bill issued by ARAS to the complainant dated 13.06.2014
Exbt.A-4 copy of gmail communication
ExbtA-5 copy of gmail communication
Exbt.A-6 copy of gmail communication dated 04.09.2014
Exbt.A-7 copy of gmail communication dated 05.09.2014
Exbt.A-8 copy of retail invoice issued by Jayaraj Karz dated 06.09.2014
ExbtA-9 copy of gmail communication dated 23.09.2014.
Exbt.A-10 copy of gmail communication dated 28.09.2014.
Exbt.A-11 copy of gmail communication dated 02.10.2014
Exbt.A-12 copy of gmail communication dated 27.10.2014
Exbt.A-13 copy of gmail communication dated 27.10.2014
Exbt.A-14 copy of gmail communication dated 28.10.2014
ExbtA-15 copy of gmail communication
Exbt.A-16 copy of gmail communication dated 04.11.2014
Exbt.A-17 copy of gmail communication dated 05.11.2014
Exbt.A-18 copy of gmail communication
Exbt.A-19 copy of bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 05.11.2014
Exbt.A-20 copy of gmail communication dated 12.02.2015
Exbt.A-21 copy of gmail communication
