By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case is that the 1st complainant purchased a brand new Ambassador Diesel car from the 2nd respondent which was manufactured by 1st respondent. The car was purchased for his personal use and for running as a taxi and earning a livelihood out of the same. An additional warranty to 50000 KM or for additional one year after the expiry of warranty from the 1st respondent was also offered by 2nd respondent on necessary payment for the same. The 1st complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 1.11.04. Immediately after delivery the following complaints were developed to the vehicle that malfunctioning of air conditioner, defective performance of gear box and wheel alignment complaint, low mileage including defect in fuel injection pump and over smoke emission as well as over oil consumption. The matter was reported to 2nd respondent and told that the problem will be rectified as soon as the periodical service is over. The complainant approached the 2nd respondent with the same complaints several times. The complainant had to drive nearly 400 kilometers to and fro. Thereafter same complaints began to develop and still persist. The request for replacement of the car with another one is also not honoured. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 1st respondent in brief is that the complainant is not a consumer since the complainant is using the car as a taxi. It is denied that any representation was made to the complainant that an additional warranty of 50000 kms. or for additional one year after the expiry of the warranty would be available from the manufacturer company of the car. There is no provision in the warranty card to provide added or extra warranty on payment. No additional payment was taken from the customer for such benefits. Before delivering the car to the customer pre-delivery inspection was done and the car was delivered in full satisfaction of the complainant. The 2nd respondent attended the car from time to time. So the allegation of deficiency in service is false. This respondent denies the allegation that the car suffers from any manufacturing defect. Timely service and proper maintenance of the car are essential to ensure comfortable and long user of the car. There is no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The counter of respondents-2 to 4 is that the 1st complainant purchased the vehicle in November 2004 for taxi purposes. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle on free delivery inspection and was delivered on satisfaction of the complainant. The service and other repair works were done to the vehicle as per the request of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service from respondents-2 to 4. The vehicle is purchased for running as taxi and the car has run for several kilometres. The vehicle has run more than 65000 kms. now. The claim of complainant for replacement of the vehicle is unnecessary and illegal. The car is using as taxi now also. Hence dismiss.
4. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P12. No evidence adduced by respondents.
6. Points: The complaint is filed alleging defects to the Ambassador car purchased by 1st complainant. The 1st complainant was died during pendency of the case and the legal heirs were impleaded as additional complainants. It is the case that the vehicle which was purchased by 1st complainant got defects immediately after purchase of the vehicle. The respondents filed their versions and submitted that there were no manufacturing defect to the vehicle as alleged by complainants and the vehicle is running as taxi and several kilometres had run till date.
7. The 3rd complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P12 documents are marked. It is the attitude of PW1 that he doesn’t know about the details of the vehicle and he answered to the questions as he doesn’t know. It is the nature that he doesn’t know from which date the vehicle has got defects and he doesn’t know the warranty period of the vehicle etc. It is his version that he doesn’t know whether the vehicle has got repair in another workshop.
8. The complainants have produced Exts. P1 to P12. The repair bills, the complaints regarding the defects of the vehicle are also including in the documents. Ext. P10 to P12 are the letters of automobile workshop and the defects are noted. It is to be noted that Ext. P12 is dated 10.9.03 which is before purchasing of the vehicle and the purchase date was on November 2004. Even if some of the defects are noted in the documents produced by complainants there is no document to show the defect occurred immediately after the purchase. Ext. P2 is dated 21.4.06 whereas in the document list the date is wrongly written as 21.4.05. As per Ext. P3 the services were done during the periods noted in the job cards. It is the case of respondents that there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. But the defects are caused due to the use of the vehicle because the vehicle is and was used as taxi.
9. An expert was appointed and inspected the vehicle and filed his report before the Forum. Even if the report is not marked in evidence we have perused the same. At the same time it is to be noted that the inspection was on 2009. The commissioner has noted that the vehicle was rusting and the rusting was not caused due to any maintenance lapse from the side of the complainant. The reasons for rusting are also noted by the commissioner. But all these are after 5 years of purchase and are not fully reliable. The vehicle should be inspected by an expert at the time of filing of the complaint in order to bring the true facts. According to PW1 the vehicle is still using as taxi. The prayer of the complainants is replacement of engine and chassis. But in the present circumstances the complainants are not entitled for replacement of engine and chassis. Even if the respondents taken serious contentions no evidence adduced by them. Since the vehicle is still in use and has got some defects the complainants are entitled for compensation only.
10. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondents-1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 7th day of August 2012.
