IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.85/08 (Filed on 08.07.2008) Between: Ashok Kumar, Thottathil House, Elanthoor.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Thomas.G. Maruthethu) ….. Petitioner And: 1. M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, P.O. Hind Motor, Hoogly District, West Bengal, India, Pin – 712 233. (By Adv. Bindu. N. Rajan) 2. M/s. Geo Motors, Ernakulam. 3. M/s. Geo Motors, Thiruvalla. 4. The Service Engineer, Geo Motors, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. P.K. Santhamma & Sujatha.M.G) ….. Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant has purchased a brand new Ambassador Car bearing Reg.No.KL.03/N-6208 from 2nd opposite party on 10.1.06, manufactured by the 1st opposite party. From the 2nd day onwards the purchase, the complainant noticed that there is a leakage of engine oil from the car. It was informed to the 4th opposite party and the Service Engineer of opposite parties cured it. But after one week the oil leakage started again then the Service Engineer informed the complainant that the oil leakage is common to Ambassador Car. The complainant constrained to change engine oil between every 4000 km. due to this oil leakage. When the car completed 7500 km. it was noticed that the 1st gear of the car was slipping then the yoke and teeth assembly of the car was repaired by the authorized workman. For repairing the defects the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.13,592/-. Even now the car is not in a road worthy condition. All the defects of the car was due to the manufacturing defect of the engine. 4th opposite party is the Service Engineer of the 1st opposite party, the 4th opposite party has a duty to point out the defects of the car to the 1st opposite party during the service period offered by them and the complainant is entitled to replace the engine of car. The complainant had informed the matter to all the opposite parties at the relevant time when the manufacturing defect of the car was noticed within the warranty period itself. But they believed to the complainant that if the defects were persist the company would replace the defective parts after that they cheated the complainant. There is a negligency in service from the part of all opposite parties hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for allowing the complainant to recover the repairing amount of the vehicle Rs.13,592/- from the opposite parties and for directing the opposite parties to replace the defective engine and for allowing cost of the complaint from the complainant. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 3. The 1st opposite party has filed a version stating as follows:- There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties there is no manufacturing defect to the complainant’s car as alleged in the complaint, hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is barred by limitation. This complaint is filed after the expiry of the warranty period and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed by the complainant. There is no expert report suggesting any manufacturing defect to the car, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. After the purchase of the car on 10.1.06 the car was brought to the Service Bay of Geo Motors on 20.1.06 for the 1st service as per the warranty condition. At that time there was no complaint of oil leakage and the car was travelled around 1000 km. Thereafter on 7.2.03 the complainant brought the car with the complaint of 1st gear slip and which was rectified by changing the 1st gear wheel. After that there was no complaint of 1st gear slip. Thereafter on 27.2.06 the car was brought to the service bay of 3rd opposite party 2nd initial service. Then there was no complaint was reported by the complainant. There was no leakage of engine oil or slipping of 1st gear ever reported to the opposite parties by the complainant at the Odo meter reading of 7500 kms. The complainant put to strict proof of the same. After on 26.4.06 the car was brought before 3rd opposite party then the vehicle was completed 10031 km. and there was no complaint of leakage of oil. On 25.5.06 only the complainant reported about it and it was duly taken care by the Service Engineers utmost satisfaction of the complainant. After that on 27.6.06 the complainant brought the vehicle for regular checkup but there was no complaint reported. On 21.9.06 and on 20.10.06, the car was brought before 3rd opposite party, but no complaints reported. Then the warranty of the vehicle had expired only on 2.7.07 the complainant complained about sound in the differential. It was repaired by the Service Engineers. On 6.7.06, the complainant made complaints of sound in gearbox, sound in propeller shaft etc. All the complaints were rectified by the 3rd opposite party, at that time also there was no complaints of leakage. After that on 28.8.07, there was no complaint, which can suggest mechanical or manufacturing defect to the complainant’s car. 5. The 1st opposite party is one of the oldest manufacturer in the automobile industries of India and has its reputation not only in India but also other parts of South Asia for its quality product and services. The car was delivered to the complainant after the inspection of the car by the complainant before delivery and took delivery after being fully satisfied. The legal notice issued by the complainant was duly replied by the opposite party vide letter dated 28.3.08. There is no manufacturing defect exists to the complainant’s vehicle, there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party. Therefore this opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 6. The opposite parties 2 to 4 are filed a common version stating the following contentions:- This opposite parties are admitted the purchase of the Ambassador Car on 10.1.06 by the complainant. The warranty for the car is 1 year or 50000 kms whichever is earlier. The claim raised after 2 year is not maintainable. On 20.1.06 the complainant brought the vehicle before the 3rd opposite party and raised some complaints. The 3rd opposite party rectified the complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant. After that the vehicle had run 4000 kms then the vehicle brought before the 3rd opposite party and repaired all the defects. Within two months the vehicle was covered 10031 kms. then there was no complaint of oil leakage made by the complainant. Since the vehicle had covered 57117 kms within 1 and a half years of its purchase the averment of the complainant that the vehicle is not in the road worthy condition is false. This opposite parties have taken much care and caution in attending each complaint pointed out by the complainant. The complainant has got best service from opposite parties. The complainant had spent the amount after the warranty period therefore he is not entitled for the amount claimed. There is no permanent complaint for his vehicle hence no need of replacing any parts. There is no deficiency in service from the part of them hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. The points for consideration in this complaint are:- (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs & Costs? 8. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 marked for him. Two witnesses for the complainant has examined as PW2 and PW3 for proving his complaint. For the opposite parties, the authorized representative of the 1st opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked through PW1. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 9. The complainant’s case is that the brand new Ambassador Car purchased from the opposite parties have some manufacturing defect and due to this the engine oil of the vehicle was leaking and the 1st gear was slipping and other defects to the complainant’s vehicle. All the complaints were reported before the opposite parties and the Service Engineer of the opposite party did not reported the defects to the manufacturer for replacing the engine. It is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 2 to 4. The slipping of 1st gear and oil leakage of the car is due to the manufacturing defect and the complainant had repaired the Yoke and teeth assembly of the car by the authorized workmen and he had spent an amount of Rs.13,592/- for repairing the vehicle. Therefore he filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Delivery Receipt dated 10.1.06 issued by the Geo Motors to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the cash bill dated 9.7.07 for Rs.1,427/- issued by Geo Motors. Ext.A3 is the cash bill dated 9.7.07 for Rs.3,572/- issued by Geo Motors. Ext.A4 is the copy of the registered notice dated 1.2.08 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A5 series are the postal receipts of Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 series is the acknowledgment cards of Ext.A5. Ext.A7 is the cash bills for Rs.800/- dated 11.7.08 issued by Marikar Industries. Ext.A8 is the Certificate of Automobile Engineering issued by Board of Technical Education to Sreejith. B (PW3) in the year 2000. Ext.A9 is the copy of license issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to Sreejith.B. (PW3). Ext.A10 is the Certificate of renewal of license of Sreejith.B (PW3). Opposite party’s counsel has been cross-examined PW1. 11. For proving the complainant’s case for supporting the complainant two witnesses for the complainant has been examined as PW2 and PW3. PW2 is the driver of the complainant’s vehicle and PW3 is the insurance surveyor who inspected the complainant’s vehicle. All the witnesses were cross-examined by opposite parties counsel. 12. Opposite parties contended that all the defects during the warranty period was rectified by the utmost care and caution to the satisfaction of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service from the part of them in rendering the service to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect during the warranty period to the complainant’s vehicle hence the complaint is not entitled to get the repairing charges or replace the parts of the vehicle. 13. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 1st opposite party’s authorized agent adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked through PW1. Ext.B1 is the Job card dated 9.1.06 prepared by Geo Motors for the repairing of complainant’s vehicle. Ext.B2 is the Job card prepared by the 3rd opposite party on 9.1.06 for repairing the complainant’s vehicle. Ext.B3 is the job card dated 9.1.06 prepared by the 3rd opposite party and Ext.B4 is the job card prepared by 3rd opposite party for repairing the complainant’s vehicle. 14. On going through the evidences in this case, Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 10.1.06 from the opposite parties. The complainant admitted the duration of warranty of vehicle was for 50000 km. or 1 year whichever is earlier. On a perusal of Ext.B1 to B4 it is shows that the complainant had brought his vehicle to the service station of opposite party on 20.1.06. Then there was no complaint for the vehicle and it was run 1000 km. After on 27.2.06 the vehicle was repaired then it was run 5223 km. and no complaint of oil leakage. After on 27.2.07 the car taken to the service station for service when it covered 51120 km. and all the complaints raised by the complainant was rectified. The warranty of the vehicle was over on 10.1.07. As per Ext.B4 dated 6.7.07 the vehicle covered 52025 km. and the bill was issued to the complainant for the repair of the vehicle. From the evidence it is seen that the opposite parties have rectified all the complaints of the vehicle during the warranty period. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect during the warranty period and it was repaired by him. The payment of Ext.A2, A3 and A7 repairing bills were made after the expiry of the warranty of the vehicle. The complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence (expert report) to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and due to that there is a leakage of engine oil and gear slipping. If there is any oil leakage or gear slipping during the warranty period what prevented the complainant to inform the matter to the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer and the other opposite parties for getting the remedy. 15. At the time of cross-examination of PW3, he stated that he had repaired the complainant’s vehicle from 2001 onwards. On August 2007 he had inspected the complainant’s vehicle two times then he noted the oil leak. There is no evidence from the complainant that he had informed all these complaints to the opposite parties and it was not repaired by them. At the time of deposition PW1 stated that he had complained the oil leakage and gear slipping before the 3rd opposite party when the vehicle was brought before them for repairing and service. But the job card Ext.B1 to B3 does not shows any complaint of oil leakage or gas slipping. Only in Ext.B4 it was noted and repaired, i.e. after the expiry of warranty of vehicle. On a perusal of Ext.A4 legal notice it was issued only on 1.2.08 to the opposite parties, i.e. one year after the expiry of the warranty. 16. On going through the deposition of PW2, the driver of the complainant’s vehicle, stated as follows:- “hml\¯n\v complaint Dmbt¸msgms¡ FXrI£n ]\¯n sImp t]mImdpv. Gear slipping and Oil leak F¶o complaint I#161;pw sImp t]mbn«pv. ]Wn Ignªv work satisfied Bbn«mWv hn workshop#194; \n¶pw sImp t]mIp¶Xv. a workshop#194; sImp t]mImdnÔ. From the deposition of PW2, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties for repairing the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.B3 the vehicle had run 51124 km. It shows that the vehicle has no serious complaints (manufacturing defect) as alleged by the complainant. Further the complainant has not produced any evidence showing that he had spent an amount of Rs.13,592/- for repairing the gear slipping and Yoke assembly. From the above discussions, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties. The complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service from the opposite parties hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of June, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Ashok kumar. T.G PW2 : Anil kumar. T.G PW3 : Sreejith. B Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Delivery Receipt dated 10.1.06 issued by the Geo Motors to the complainant. A2 : Cash bill dated 9.7.07 for Rs.1,427/- issued by Geo Motors to the complainant. A3 : Cash bill dated 9.7.07 for Rs.3,572/- issued by Geo Motors to the complainant. A4 : Photocopy of the registered notice dated 1.2.08 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. A5 series : Postal receipts of Ext.A5 A6 series : Acknowledgment cards of Ext.A5. A7 : Cash bill dated 12.7.08 for Rs.2,700/- issued by Marikar Industries to the complainant. A8 : Photocopy of Certificate of Automobile Engineering issued by Board of Technical Education to Sreejith. B (PW3) in the year 2000. A9 : Photocopy of license issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to Sreejith.B. (PW3). A10 : Photocopy of the Certificate of renewal of license of Sreejith.B (PW3). Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : S. Madhan Britto Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Job card dated 20.1.06 prepared by Geo Motors for the repairing of complainant’s vehicle. B2 : Job card dated 27.2.06 prepared by the 3rd opposite party for repairing the complainant’s vehicle. B3 : Job card dated 2.07.07 prepared by the 3rd opposite party for repairing the complainant’s vehicle. B4 : Job card dated 6.07.07 prepared by 3rd opposite party for repairing the complainant’s vehicle. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) Ashok Kumar, Thottathil House, Elanthoor.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Managing Director, M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., P.O. Hind Motor, Hoogly District, West Bengal, India, Pin – 712 233. (3) M/s. Geo Motors, Ernakulam. (4) M/s. Geo Motors, Thiruvalla. (5) The Service Engineer, Geo Motors, Thiruvalla. (6) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
