BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.45 / 2000 WEDNESDAY THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2010. A. Dominic Sebastin, S/o. A. Anthony Swamy, La Providence, Joseph Nagar, River Land, Phase – III, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 632 009. … Complainant. - Vs – 1.M/s. Piaggio Greaves Ltd., Marketing Head Office, Transportation “Goldfields” 45, Sasson Road, Pune – 411 001. . 2. M/s. Ganpat Motors, 223, South Service Road, Phase – I, Vallalar, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 632 009. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 31.5.2010, in the presence of Thiru. G. Ravi, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.N.K.Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: After complying with the required formalities the District Industries Centre, Vellore was pleaded to forward complainant’s application for loan. Accordingly the Vysya Bank, Kalingur Branch, Vellore advanced a loan for Rs.88,128/- with the condition that the loan amount be discharged within a period of five years thereby paying a monthly premium of Rs.2500/-. After availing the loan, he purchased a Diesel Auto Rickshaw (Model – 360 D) manufactured by the Greaves Garuda Ltd., (presently Piaggio Greaves ltd) on 17.3.97, subsequently registered in No.TN-23- C-2260 from the 2nd opposite party (i.e. M/s. Ganpat Motors Ltd) A period of six months warranty was given which was subsequently extended for anther six months. The vehicle was perfectly maintained as per the instructions given in the owner’s manual. From the very second month of purchase, he was shocked to find that the right rear tyre was abnormally wearing out in abundance when compared to the other two tyres. The complainant complained of this defect at the time of the 6th paid service on 17.6.07. The 2nd opposite party miserably failed to get the defect rectified during that service as a result of which he had to replace the brand new stepney given at the time of purchase. He repeatedly complained of the same defect to the 2nd opposite party during the 7th and 8th paid services on 2.7.97 and 17.7.97 respectively. The 2nd opposite party failed to give a proper explanation for it. Consequently, the complaint had to replace the worn out tyre with a retreaded tyre on 28.9.97 which cost him bitterly. Even at the time of the 9th paid service (i.e 17.8.97,) he reiterated of the same defect, which the 2nd opposite party assured to rectify. On the contrary, on taking delivery after service, he was shocked to find the defect unrectified which totally agonized him as he could not afford to spend anymore on tyres. He was subjected to further agony when the 2nd opposite party demanded a warranty-charge of 25% of the cost of the spare part ( trailing arm) that had to be replaced in order to rectify the defect. On 28.9.97, a free service camp was conducted by the 1st opposite party in the premises of the 2nd opposite party. The service engineers after looking into the problem advised the complainant to run the vehicle less inflated. When the complainant questioned about the same in the course of the Customers welfare meet held on 1.10.97, he was humiliated with vulgar words in the presence of the company representatives and other customers by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant also complained of a defect in the fuel pump to the 2nd opposite party who instead of looking into the defect directed the complainant to approach the MICO ltd. Which had supplied the spare fuel pump to the opposite party. The MICO Ltd asked the complainant to leave the defective fuel pump for a period of 3 months to be rectified. The complainant decided to run the vehicle with the defective fuel pump which badly reduced the mileage by more than 5 kms. 2. After having waited patiently for over two months, once again expressed his unhappiness over the issue to the 1st opposite party through his letter dated 15.5.98 which was duly acknowledged. The 1st opposite party failed to reply to his complaint dt. 15.5.98 till date. Since then the complainant had been going behind the Service Engineers of the opposite parties at Vellroe to look into the matter. The complainant also reiterated of the same complaint vide another letter dt. 13.12.98 to which he likewise received no reply. The complainant requested the opposite party to look into the issue during the 2nd Annaul Free Service Camp held on 18.2.99. AS always the service engineers failed to rectify it. The failure of the opposite parties to replace the trailing arm, tyres and the fuel pump within the warranty period clearly amounts to deficiency of service and complete dereliction of duty and therefore the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence he has sought for orders of this Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.88,000/- paid as sale consideration along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization and to compensate the financial loss that the complainant suffered on account of the deficiency of service along with all incidental expenses calculate as Rs.5340/- and to compensate the loss of wages that the complainant suffered for the past 12 months calculated at Rs.54,999/- on the basis of Rs.150/- per day which shall continue till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for all the physical and mental agony that the complainant suffered as a result of the deficiency of service and for the humiliation and social embarrassment that the complainant suffered at the hands of the opposite parties in the presence of other customers and officials during the customer care meet held on 1.10.97, to pay the cost of litigation. 3. The averments in the counters filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are as follows: The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegations. It is true that the complainant purchased one Greaves Garuda Diesel Three Wheeler Auto Rickshaw through the 2nd opposite party on 17.3.97 and the said vehicle was also given six months warranty from the date of sale or date of delivery along with six free services and the rest semi-paid / paid services. These services were allowed for timely routine check up and proper maintenance of the vehicle by the customers. The complainant purchased the said vehicle through the 2nd opposite party, sold by Greaves Limited. The 1st opposite party M/s. Piaggio Greavers Limited, has nothing to do with the sale of the vehicle. Greaves Garuda Autorickshaw vehiles were manufactured only by the Greaves Limited. The said company Greaves Limited was taken over by M/s. Piaggio Greaves limited only on 1.4.98. Hence, the complainant has wrongly used the 1st opposite party M.s, Piaggio Greaves Limited and hence the complaint itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The 2nd opposite party sold the vehicle as a Dealer of Greaves Limited. The Vehicle supplied by Greaves Limited was sold to the complainant on 17.3.97. The warranty obligation as reffered to in the manual given to the complainant is as follows: 4. If a defect is observed in any Greaves Three Wheeler Company’s obligation is to repair or replace those parts, which are considered to be cause of malfunctioning, free of charges’ both of labour and parts provided it is acknowledged by the company that the same is not because of misuse / improper handling. In view of the provisions of the warranty obligation, it is quite clear that there is no provision for replacement of the vehicle or repayment of the price of the vehicle. Only a period of six months warranty was given to the vehicle. But, the allegation that the warranty was extended for another six months is totally mischievous. The allegations that there was a manufacturing defect in the trailing arm and an error in the chassis, is not admitted. During the course of the warranty period or during the free services and check up, the complainant has never complained about the alleged defects. The job card made during the warranty services and the repair cards made during the warranty period will clearly show that complainant has never complained about the trailing arm or chassis or wearing out of the tyres. The complainant made repeated complaints about the alleged defects during 7th, 8th and 9th paid services is also absolutely false. No such complaint was made to the opposite party during the warranty period or subsequently. The documents filed by the complainant will show that tyres were perfectly good and he had run more than 20,000 kilo metres during the span of 8 to 10 months. It is pertinent to note that all the correspondences made by the complainant are only after the expiry of the warranty period. Merely because the complainant had written some letters, making some unreasonable complaints with ulterior motives, that does not mean that there is some inherent defect in the vehicle. 5. From the records it is found that the 2nd opposite party had also attended the vehicle with utmost care during the warranty period and has carried out repairs and services to the satisfaction of the complainant. The job cards will clearly prove that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party or the manufacturer of the fuel pump, which is also perfectly alright and there is no dereliction of the duty on the part of the opposite party. Pleased to reject the complaint, and dismiss the same, directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the opposite parties with the costs of the proceedings. 6. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 7. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 8. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased Greaves Garuda Diesel Three Wheeler Auto Rickshaw from the 2nd opposite party, on 17.3.97, manufactured, by the Greaves Limited, on 17.3.97 and said vehicle was given six months warranty from the date of sale or date of delivery along with six free services and rest semi –paid / paid services. The complainant has not denied the contention of the 2nd opposite party that the Greaves limited Company was taken over by M/s. Piaggio Greaves Limited only on 1.4.98. 9. The complainant contended that from the very second month of purchase, he was shocked to find out the right rear tyre was abnormally wearing out in abundance when compared to the other tyres. The complainant complained of this defect at the time of the 6th paid service on 17.6.07 but the 2nd opposite party failed to get the defect rectified during that service as a result of which he had to replace the brand new stepney given at the time of purchase. The complainant repeatedly complained of the same defect to the 2nd opposite party during the 7th and 8th paid services on 2.7.97 and 17.7.97 respectively. But the 2nd opposite party failed to give a proper explanation for it. It is further contended that even at the time of the 9th paid service i.e. 17.8.97 the complainant reiterated of the same defect, he was shocked to find the defect unrectified. He was subjected to further agony when the 2nd opposite party demanded a warranty charge of 25% of the cost of the spare parts that had to be replaced in order to rectify the defect. Therefore the failure of the opposite parties to replace the trailing arm, tyre and the fuel pump within the warranty period clearly amounts to deficiency of service and complete dereliction of duty and therefore the opposite parties are liable for the same. 10. The opposite parties contended that under the warranty obligations referred to in the manual Ex.B1 given to the complainant “ If a defect is observed in any Greaves Three Wheeler Company’s obligation is to repair or replace those parts, which are considered to be cause of malfunctioning, free of charges both or labour and parts provided it is acknowledged by the Company that the same is not because of misuse / improper handling. It is quite clear that there is no provision for replacement of the vehicle or repayment of the price of the vehicle. The said vehicle was undergone periodical service i.e. on 2.4.97, 17.4.97, 2.5.97, 30.5.97, 2.6.97, 17.6.97, 2.7.97, 17.7.97, 17.8.97 and 17.9.97 and the complainant had never made any complaint to the 2nd opposite party regarding the alleged right rear tyre was abnormally wearing out and there was a manufacturing defect in the trailing arm or chassis. It is further contended that the job card made during the warranty services and the repair cards made during the warranty period will clearly show that complainant has never complained about the trailing arm or chassis or wearing out of the tyres. All the correspondence made by the complainant are only after the expiry of the warranty period. Therefore, merely because the complainant had written some letters, making some unreasonable complaints with ulterior motives, that does not mean that there is some inherent defect in the vehicle and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. 11. From the perusal of Ex.B2, dt.2.4.97, Ex.B3, Dt.22.4.97, Ex.B4, dt. 2.5.97, Ex.B5, dt.15.5.97, Ex.b6 dt.2.6.97, Ex.B7, dt.20.6.97, Ex.B8, dt.3.7.97, Ex.B9, dt. 17.7.97, Ex.B10, dt.17.8.97, and Ex.B11 dt.17.9.97 job cards signed by the representative of the complainant and the mechanic of the 2nd opposite party, it is seen that after purchase the vehicle on 17.3.97, the complainant availed all the free services within the warranty period for six months i.e. till on 17.9.97. The contention of the complainant that from the very second month of purchase, he was shocked to find that the right rear tyre was abnormally wearing out and the complainant complained of this defect at the time of the 6th paid service i.e. on 17.6.07 but the 2nd opposite party failed to get the defect rectified during that service as a result of which he had to replace the brand new stepney given at the time of purchase. On the perusal of Ex.A2 series Service Coupon dt.17.6.97 it is seen that the complainant has not made any complaint regarding the wearing out tyres. From the perusal of Ex.B6 dt.2.6.97 and Ex.B7, dt.20.6.97 job cards, it is mentioned that grease, oil, water service, meter, Wheel break body bold are checked by mechanic of the 2nd opposite party. There is no whisper about the alleged wearing out tyres and other manufacturing the defect in the said job cards. From the perusal of Ex.A2, series free service coupon paid service coupon and Ex.B2 to Ex.B11 job card there is no mentioned about the defects stated by the complainant and there is to proof that the complainant made the complaint to the opposite parties regarding the wearing out of tyres and manufacturing defect in the vehicle. After the warranty period, the complainant had sent a letters Ex.A3 dt.15.9.97, Ex.A4, dt.28.9.97, Ex.A6, dt.3.10.97, and Ex.A7, dt.23.2.98 to the Marketing General Manager, Greaves Limited, Pune. From the perusal of the above letters it is seen that the complainant has mad a complaint about the right side rear tyre getting worn out and this defect which may be due to trailing arm or some other related mechanical faults. On the perusal of Ex.A2 series service coupons it is seen that even the warranty period the complainant availed. But the complainant has never inform any such complaint regarding the tyre worn out and other manufacturing defect. Therefore, after the expiry of the warranty period, the complainant sent to 1st opposite party and stating that that there is some defects about the trailing arm or chassis or worn out of the tyre. The vehicle had undergone more than ten services during the warranty period but the complainant had never made any complaint to the 2nd opposite party regarding the defect in the trailing arm or chassis or worn out of the tyres. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that from the very 2nd month of purchase of the vehicle he was shocked to find out the right rear tyre was abnormally wearing out in abundance when compared to the other two tyres and the complainant complaints this defect at the both paid service on 17.6.97, but the 2nd opposite party failed to get the defect rectified during the service is not acceptable. 12. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A11 and Ex.B1 to B13, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 13. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 14. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 23rd day of July. 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 17.3.97 - X-copy of Ownership Manual & Warranty Certificate. Ex.A2- -- - X-copy of Service Coupons (10). Ex.A3- 15.7.97 - X-copy of Complainant’s 1st complaint to the 1st opposite party 30.9.97 & the reply made by the 1st opposite party. Ex.A4- 28.9.97 - X-copy of complainant’s intimation of the Service Engineer’s Advice. Ex.A5- -- - X-copy of bills fro retreading and buying new tyres. Ex.A6- -- - X-copy of the complainants complaint the 1st opposite party of the indecent behaviour of the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A7- 23.2.98 - X-copy of Complainant’s further reiteration of the same defects 21.3.98 & the 1st opp parties response to it. Ex.A8- -- - X-copy of complainant’s request to the MICO ltd., to look into the Defective fuel pump. Ex.A9- 15.5.98 - X-copy of complainant’s further complaint to the opposite parties & its acknowledgement. Ex.A10- 13.12.98 - X-copy of complainant’s reiteration of the same defects. Ex.A11- 20.10.99 - X-copy of Legal notice. & reply notice. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - Warranty Book for the vehicle. Ex.B2- 2.4.97 - Job card. Ex.B3- 22.4.97 - Job card. Ex.B4- 2.5.97 - Job card. Ex.B5- 15.5.97 - Job card. Ex.B6 - 2.6.97- - Job card. Ex.B7- 20.6.97 - Job card. Ex.B8- 3.7.97 - Job card. Ex.B9- 17. 7.97 - Job card. Ex.B10-18.8.97 - Job card. Ex.B11- 17.9.97 - Job card. Ex.B12- -- - - Vehicle History Card. Ex.B13- -- - Fitness Certificate of the vehicle. . MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
