C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Facts of the complaint in short are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Fiesta car on 22-03-2007. Ever since the purchase, he was using the vehicle with utmost care. The complainant had taken extended warranty for a further period of one year from 22-03-2008 to 21-03-2009. Periodical services were done with the second opposite party. In February 2009 oil leakage was detected at the valve cover assembly. The vehicle was taken to the second opposite party on 04-03-2009 and oil leakage was brought to their notice. The technician who attended the vehicle informed the complainant that the spare valve cover assembly is not available at that time and promised to replace the same free of cost when the vehicle is taken for next periodical service and also assure that there is absolutely no problem in using the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle was taken for periodical service on 22-04-2009. At that time also spare parts were not available. Subsequently as intimated by opposite party No. 2 the vehicle was taken to the service centre. On 13-05-2009 valve cover assembly was replaced. The work was done under the definite assurance given to the complainant that the replacement will be done free of cost since oil leakage was detected at a time when the vehicle was covered by extended warranty. After completing the work they requested the complainant to remit invoice amount of Rs. 9,453/- and also informed that the cost of valve cover assembly and the labour charges for replacement would be refunded to him on getting sanction from the first opposite party. But they did not refund the amount. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party says that the first opposite party has not accorded sanction for the refund of the amount, since the replacement was done after the expiry of the period of extended warranty. According to the complainant the work could not be done during the warranty period due to non availability of the spare parts with the 2nd opposite party. The refusal of the 2nd opposite party to refund the Rs. 9,453/- amounts to deficiency of service. Thereafter a lawyer notice was issued but they denied their liability to refund the amount. Hence the complaint. The relief sought is to refund Rs. 9,453/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization along with litigation costs.
2. Version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:
The complainant purchased the vehicle on 15-03-2007 and the same is covered under the regular warranty and extended warranty until 15-03-2009. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty contained in the owners manual and extended warranty. The vehicle was received for servicing on 09-10-2008 at 18568 KMs and thereafter on 22-04-2006, at 23251 KMs. No problems were reported between the said services. On 22-04-2009, it was observed that the valve cover assembly needed replacement. Since it was not readily available the complainant was informed about the same and told that the spare part would be procured shortly and replaced. Thereafter the vehicle was received for service again on 13-05-2009 and the spare part was replaced. The wetness around the PVC valve was due to a minor leak which occurs in normal course during the running of the vehicle and the assembly along with the valve, tappet cover need to be replaced. The warranty has expired on 15-03-2009 and repairs were required to be done subsequent to the said date and are not covered by warranty. Therefore the opposite party is unable to do the repairs free of cost and the complainant will be liable to bear the expenses for the repairs. Further the opposite party has not represented that such repairs will be done free of cost. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. There is no cause of action as against the opposite parties and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. The complainant and the 1st opposite party one represented through their counsel. 2nd opposite party remained absent after the receipt of notice. Complainant adduced only documentary evidence and Ext. A1 marked on his side. Witness for the 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.B1 to B5 were marked on their side. Thereafter we have heard both sides.
4. The points that arose for our determination are as follows:
i. Whether complainant is entitled to get refund the amount he spent for repair charges or not?
ii. Costs if any
5. Points Nos. 1 & 2. Ext. A1 copy of the lawyer notice is the only document as the complainant’s side. Ext. B2 is the customer information sheet dated 22-04-2009 in which the observation of the 2nd opposite party is that “Valve cover assembly needs replacement (part not available) Ext. B3 report order dated 13-05-2009 shows that the oil leak from the valve cover side had rectified. Ext. B4 customers information report dt. 13-05-2009 goes to show that no observation was reported and in which complainant put his signature.
Complainant admitted that the extended warranty expired on 21-03-2009. It is evident from the documents that the defect noted after the warranty period. There is absolutely no evidence before us to believe that the complainant reported such defect to the 2nd opposite party within the warranty period i.e. on 04-03-2009 as he claimed. Therefore in the absence of reliable piece of evidence we are inclined to hold that the complaint had no merit and deserves to be dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2011
