By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party to return back the value of the vehicle due to the defects in the vehicle and to get cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant purchased a 6+1 seater vehicle from Opposite party No.1 and 2 for his livelihood. The passenger wagon is a 2000 cc Diesel powered vehicle with full option facilities. The Opposite parties 1 & 2 assured that they are having branches and services stations all over Kerala and promised that world Renowed M.G.Rover, United Kingdom is Technically collaborated and conceptualized and Engineered the vehicles and products are of high standard and quality according to the Indian Standards. Further, opposite parties promised that a service centre with all modern equipments will be starting near his place and hence the vehicle will be an asset to the complainant's self-employment and assured hi-tech advanced maintenance with periodical service. It was also assured that the vehicle can be serviced all over Kerala. The Complainant paid Rs.9,82,268/- as per the Bill invoice. The complainant purchased the vehicle availing loan from Canara Bank, Taliparamba. But the vehicle was not upto the standard and the complainant suffered a lot due to the lack of skilful Mechanical support of the Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Due to the regular problem occurring to the vehicle the complainant could not run the vehicle. The oil leak which happened on within 1 month from the date of purchase of the vehicle and it took around 6 months to detect the defect and it has not been clearly rectify till this date. The complainant approached the Opposite parties 1 & 2 several times but they did not care the complaint and made to suffer by providing wrong service. There is lack of skilful team of mechanics to give proper service to the complainant. The service team dismantled the engine to rectify the oil leak problem for more than 6 or 7 times and they changed one or other mechanical parts to make it as an experiment for their experience. The complainant came to Kalpetta from Kannur for curing the defects on 21/03/14, 19/04/14, 28/05/14, 11/06/14, 02/07/14, 19/07/14, 31/07/14 and 30/08/14. On 30/08/14 the Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that his service man has started a workshop at Mananthavady and he was directed to go to Mananthavady. Accordingly he took the vehicle to Mananthavady. The complainant had to travel 410 km from his place to the nearest service centre and back for each service or repair. More than half of the Journey made to avail the service from the Opposite party. The diesel in the automatic panel is out of order and not working properly. The fuel even filled in full after running few kilometers falls down to red line and shows the fuel is empty. The seats provided are not proper and without any cushion bedding and without proper fixing. The doors of the vehicle are defective. The outer painting of the vehicle is peeling off and this given the vehicle an ugly look and the defective good is of no use to the complainant. The vehicle is over heated while driving even at a short distance.
3. The vehicle was used as taxi and once the complainant was driving the vehicle with passengers it got damaged due to the Leak of oil and other mechanical defect and the travel could not continue. The complainant was heavily abused by the passengers and was forced to give avail another taxi at complainant's own expense. When the complainant made a complaint with the dealer and manufacturer the Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are not turning to give service. The complainant is the sole bread winner of the family and now more into severe financial crisis due to the purchase of the defective vehicle manufactured by opposite party No.3. The vehicle promised and supplied by the opposite parties is not upto the standard as promised by them and is full of manufacturing defects. The complainant has no other option except to give back the vehicle and to get all the amounts and expenses he incurred. The complainant has suffered mental agony due to unlawful act of the opposite parties. There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant sustained irreparable loss and hardship. The complainant also suffered mental agony due to the unlawful act of opposite parties. In total all the first step to the last the opposite parties entire act is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Though the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the value of the vehicle along with the expenses, or to replace the vehicle they did not care to give attention of complainant’s demand. Since the complainant is using the vehicle for taxi service he is now unable to use and find his livelihood because of the ugly look as the outer painting of the vehicle is peeling off and the defective vehicle in mechanical system as well as poor standard of service. It has been repeatedly asked the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to pay the Invoice Bill amount, registration and insurance expenses and other incidental charges incurred by the complainant. The complainant has to remit Rs.18,000/- per month towards loan amount. Because of the defects the vehicle could not be used as taxi and find it difficult to pay the installments. Hence prayed before the Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties to give the value of the vehicle of Rs.9,82,268/- with registration, insurance and other incidental charges to the complainant and to give compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards loss and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of
this Proceedings.
4. Notices were served to opposite parties and Opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte. Opposite party No.2 filed version stating that it is true that this opposite party had a show room at Kalpetta which is now not functioning, but now also a service centre is working at Mananthavadi with skilled and expert mechanics. It is also correct to say that this opposite party is the authorized dealer of the vehicles manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The allegation that this opposite party assured the complainant that they have service stations all over Kerala is against facts and is vehemently denied. It is true that the owner of a vehicle marketed by this opposite party has the right to avail the service from any of the service station in Kerala run by this opposite party. The allegation that this opposite party has lack of skilful mechanics due to which he suffered a lot is also against facts, devoid of any merits and is also denied by this opposite party. The vehicles manufactured and marketed by the 3rd opposite party is free from defects and the said vehicle has no defects as alleged by the complainant. The vehicle details related to the periodical service revels that the vehicle is performing very well and is covered a handsome kilometers within this limited period. That means the complainant is making huge profits by plying the vehicle, The further allegation that the said vehicle has oil leakage and though it was serviced for more than six times, till now it is not cured is also against facts and is vehemently denied. It is not correct to say that the vehicle was brought for service on 21/03/2014, 19/04/2014, 28/05/2014, 11/06/2014, 02/07/2014, 19/07/2014 and 30/08/2014. As per the details with regard the servicing of vehicles, the alleged dates are fictitious and the vehicle of the complainant was not reported to the service centre of this opposite party as alleged.
5. Likewise the fuel gauge of the vehicle is not functioning is also not correct as the complainant not raised such a complaint before the opposite parties. As the vehicle has a warranty, if such a defect is there to the vehicle within the warranty period, definitely it will be replaced by claiming the same from the 3rd opposite party but he not raised such a complaint. The odometer reading of the vehicle will reveal the performance of the vehicle. Here the complainant has not a case that he can't plyed the vehicle or not cared to plead the odometer reading of the vehicle to the date of filing this complaint. As the vehicle has no manufacturing defect, it is not the duty casted on this opposite party to take back the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. The vehicle is going to cover the reading of the odometer beyond the warranty period offered by the 3rd opposite party as a pressure tactics to extend the warranty period the complaint approached this Honorable Court with this type of allegations. If the vehicle has any of the alleged defects, defiantly the complainant may approach this Court immediately after the purchase of his vehicle. This being the facts, this opposite party is not liable to replace or take back the vehicle. If the complainant proves the alleged manufacturing defect, it is the duty on the 3rd opposite party to replace the vehicle and not on the shoulders of this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant on any account. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of this opposite party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Opposite party No.3 filed version stating that the complaint is not legally maintainable in this Honorable Forum because the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purposes. The complainant has been attended properly by the answering respondents as and when he approached with any complaint or grievance and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering opposite party. The complaint is barred by limitation. It is totally incorrect that vehicle in question had any problem as alleged. It is submitted that the opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of vehicle in question and the said vehicles are manufactured with standardized techniques and quality control system of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. After proper testing and quality checks the vehicles are sent to dealers for sale. It is submitted that no problem what so ever was reported to the answering opposite party No.3. It is submitted that the vehicle in question had warranty of one year or 50,000 kms whichever is earlier. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant in the month of March 2014 and in the month of August 2014 when the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.1 to the said vehicle had already run for more than 20,000 kms which clearly prove that there was no defect in the vehicle as the complainant had used the vehicle extensively and negligently. However, the alleged problems reported by the complainant are normal wear and tears due to rough use of vehicle by the complainant and these are not the manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. It is incorrect that there is no service centre in the area of complainant. Well equipped service centre is working in the area of complainant namely “Car Point”, Mysore road, Chettapalam, Near Honda Show rook, Mananthavady, Wayanad, Kerala. The complainant can contact concerned person ie Mr. Ajesh at the said service centre. It is totally wrong and incorrect that there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or refund of price. The complainant has no merits, hence prayed to dismiss the complainant.
7. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3 series documents were marked. Ext.C1 (Commissioner Report) is also marked. Ext.A1 is the Owners details and vehicle details. Ext.A2 is the Quotation given by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant, where the total value of the vehicle is shown as Rs.9,82,268/-. It include Rs.45,668/- for insurance Rs.1,100/- for Road Tax and Rs.5,500/- for TP and handling charges. Ext.A3(1) is the Lawyer notice issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ext.A3(2) is the Acknowledgment Card. Ext.A3(3) is the Postal Receipt. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner Report. In the commissioner Report it is stated that “the hazard lights are not blinking properly. The reverse indicator light and reverse white light are not functioning properly. The high beam was put off when reverse gear engaged. The electric circuits and relay system are failure. The center lock jet actuator was replaced two time within this period. The vehicle body paint full of vesiculated. The several painted portion are shedding on the surface of the metal sheets are shown. The naked part of body sheet metal has no primary coat. The front left door unlocking lever was not functioning. The links materials used for this door was low quality. No accident remarks are found. Water leak found through back door beading. The water drops are coming through hood joints. The interior hood clothe covering are become gray of pale with fungus. The rusted and corroded on the surrounding of back door beading. The major problem found bottom of the engine. The transmission gear box and the engine sump are become wet with oil. The assembly packing and sealing are failure.” Conclusion:- From the examination the vehicle is unfit for long journey. The lack of skilled servicing affected the all maintenance. The blistering painting of vehicle body shows the production quality is poor. The electric wiring and distribution system failed. The frequent leakage of Transmission oil and engine oil means manufacturing defect of this vehicle.
8. Opposite party No.3 filed objection to Commissioner Report and it is a formal objection. Opposite party No.2 and 3 has not adduced any oral evidence.
9. On considering the complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
side of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
10. Point No.1:- On overall evaluation of all the evidences and commission report it is proved that there is deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties to rectify and cure the defects noted by the commissioner and the blistering of painting and shedding of vesiculation, not done primary coat paintings on the metal body parts, the low quality links materials used for doors, the low quality beading used for door, using of low quality interior hood cloths etc are unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.3. Not rectifying the complaints of oil leaks and not rectifying the defects in the electric circuits, unlocking liver and not rectifying the electrical complaint is deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2. In the circumstances we found that there is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of all the opposite parties. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
11. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against all the opposite parties, they are jointly and severally liable to rectify all the defects and to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to rectify the following defects of the vehicle and to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation due to the loss of daily income for somany days, hardship, loss, mental agony and sufferings. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
The works to be carried out by the opposite parties free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this Order as stated below:-
1. Full body painting with good quality.
2. Replace full electrical items with wirings.
3. Rectify the defects in the unlocking liver of front left door.
4. Replace all the beading of the doors and interior hood cloths.
5. Replace all the oil seals and fill oil where ever there is oil and oil seals and handover
the vehicle in full running condition to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of September 2015.
Date of Filing:13.10.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Vinod Kumar. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Owners Details and Vehicle Details.
A2. Copy of Quotation.
A3(1). Lawyer Notice. Dt:16.08.2014.
A3(2). Acknowledgment Card (2 Nos).
A3(3). Postal Receipt.
Ext.C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:21.03.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
