This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the car with a new one or to refund `4,97,294 as value of the car with repair charge received by opposite parties.

          The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Ford Ikon blair car from opposite party on 8^th March, 2008 by paying `4,83,000.  The opposite parties had given two years warranty except body and tires and the complainant had extended the warranty by paying `9040.  At the time of purchase opposite parties assured the complainant that if the vehice needs any repair within the warranty period, it will be repaired free of cost and if it has any manufacturing defect, it will replaced with a new car of the same model.  But within6 months of its purchase some unusual sound was heard from the back side of the engine of the car and it was repaired from opposite party’s service centre and repaired free of cost and represented to the complainant that all the defects were cured.  But after a lapse of two months the same complaints occurred with high sound and the steering is not in a usable condition and again on 07.08.08 the vehicle was repaired by 1^st opposite party and received an amount of `3,499.  But the same complaints were repeated several times and making heavy sound while applying break and again on 12.02.09 the vehicle was repaired by opposite party and received `3556.  Again on 25.07.2009 and on 27.08.2009 the vehicle was repaired by opposite party and received `1072 for these service.  Due to the frequent defect, the complainant had taken the vehicle before 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party’s centre at Calicut and spend `2424.  Again the complainant had spent `3743 again for the repairing of the same defect. So the complainant approached opposite party for several time either to replace the vehicle or to refund the value of the vehicle along with the amount spend for repair.  But all these were fallen upon a dump ear, so now the complainant is not using the car since it can not be used.  The complainant has purchased the car for traveling from Kannur to Virajpet for his business.  So he had spent about one lakh rupees for his journey.  Moreover he had suffered both mental and physical hardsips.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

          The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting that there is warranty for service and repairs for a period of 2 years.  But it is incorrect to say that opposite parties promised to replace the vehicle.  It is incorrect to say that the vehicle emitted a bang sound.  No such complaint was ever made before opposite party.  The vehicle was offered first free service upto 5000 Km and the vehicle was brought on 26.05.2008.   When it crossed the used mileage of 5667 Km the complainant reported minor complaints which was duly attended by service personnel.  At that time the vehicle was verified by running the vehicle about 6 Km and no complaint was depicted. On reaching 9827 Km the vehicle was brought and function of almost all mechanical main parts were checked and verified. The complaint reported was rat bitten and belt noise and these complaints were rectified, wheel alignment corrected, fuel fitter changed and done similar work that are essential and inevitably done to automobile in regular course of usage.  At the time of 3^rd servicing the request of the customer is to correct front accessory belt sound and the same was serviced and the complainant satisfied with the work done and took back the vehicle and the allegation on the contrary is denied.  On 25.07.2009, the customer request was engine misfiring, fix antenna properly and door lubrication.  The complainant was making complaints repeatedly telling about abnormal sound without any basis.  On 31.08.09 the complainant expressed his desire to 1^st opposite party to buy some other luxurious and costly vehicle and all the story were invented as a calculated device to file a complaint against the company.  Necessary services were carried out wherever he brought the vehicle.  The allegation that damages and defects occurring repeatedly and that opposite party promised to repay the expenses incurred for repairs and that he assured that no complaint would occur in future etc are denied.  It is not correct that the vehicle produces heavy sound when the breaks are applied.  It is also incorrect that on 25.09.09 the service centre at Calicut promised to repay the amount of `2424 etc.  It is also incorrect to say that the car was used for last ten months and kept idle due to recurring defects.  The vehicle is manufactured by well established and famous company which had a chequered past history of good recognition and goodwill in the field of automobile industries.  The product in question manufactured in the batch carries the same quality and features as that of the rest of finished good.  So there is no question of happening manufacturing defect.  If the vehicle has any damages, it is on account of reckless, careless and negligent use.  The vehicle has run a considerable length of Kilometer and has suffered the natural wear and tear.  The opposite party had acted sincerely and in utmost bonafide and rendered the best services to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          2^nd opposite party also filed version admitting the purchase.  On 07.08.08 at 9827 Kms the car had reported a belt noise and was found that PCV hose was replaced to resolve and there is purely external and cannot be considered to be a manufacturing defect.  On 25.07.2009, the vehicle had reported for misfiring where the ignition coil replaced under warranty though the component failure was attributed to poor quality of fuel and extreme usage.  On 27.08.09 at 30,205 Kms abnormal sound from engine was reported and throttle body was replaced and resolved the problem.  This may be due to poor qualities of fuel and usage and the same was replaced under warranty as a special gesture of goodwill.  Both ball joints and the rod ends were replaced under warranty.  The altenator bracket was also replaced under warranty.  On 23.09.09 at 32,034 Kms the car had reported to Calicut workshop for misfiring and an inspection it was found normal and under request regular maintenance jobs were carried out and delivered to the customer.  There is no manufacturing defect that has hampered the performance of the vehicle.  The other part is part of the scheduled maintenance service and lubricants and normal servicing parts which are not covered under warranty.  The vehicle has been used extensively and in extreme condition.  So the complainant has no merits.  The complainant has used the vehicle for around `35,000 Kms.  If the vehicle as inherent manufacturing defect the car could not have been extensively used.  The 1^st opposite party had not assured the complainant the refund of maintenance charge and hence there is no merit in the complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency of service?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 and Ext.C1 and B1 to B9.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          The complainant contended that the vehicle purchased on 08.03.08 which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party was defective within 6 months of its purchase by making heavy sound and also power steering is defective.  The opposite parties levied charges also for services during warranty period, eventhough the vehicle has an extended warranty of 24 months and hence the vehicle has warranty upto 2012 March.  In order to prove his case he was examined PW1 and PW2 and produced documents such as extended warranty registration form, extended warranty plan certificate, invoice with cash receipt dated 07.08.08, invoice with bill dated 25.09.09, invoice with bill dated 12.02.09, interactive reception check sheet dated 12.01.09, repair order dated 12.02.09, Invoice dated 02.11.09, free invoice with bill dated 27.08.09, receipt dated 25.09.07, invoice dated 25.07.2009, and expert’s report.  In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined DW1 and produced documents such as Authorisation letter, repair order dated 26.05.08, pre-invoicing dated 26.05.08, repair order dated 07.08.08, repair order dated 12.02.09, repair order dated 25.07.09,  Invoice dated 25.07.09, repair order dated 23.11.09, vehicle gate pass dated 17.12.10 etc.  The Exts. A1 and A2 shows that the vehicle has an extended warranty of 24 months and hence it has a warranty upto 80,000 Kms or 4 years ie the period of warranty is upto March, 2012.  The exts.A4 to A11 and Exts B3 to B7 shows that the vehicle was repaired eight times within a span of 1 ½ years and the opposite parties billed for the repair charge, which they are not entitled to do so.  As per Ext.A3 they have charge of `2050 other than fuel and oils.  As per Ext.A4 opposite parties have billed `1934.  Ext.A5 shows that `1790 was billed, as per Ext.A8 `3743 was billed, as per A9, `900 was billed, which opposite parties are not entitled to bill the above said amount, since it has a warranty upto March, 2012 or 80,000 Kms.  An expert commissioner has inspected the vehicle and filed Ext.C1 report and he was examined as PW2.  In ext.C1 he reported that Kl-13-S 2375 hml\w tFItZiw 8 IntemaoäÀ HmSn¨v ]cntim[\ \S¯nbXn \n¶v Xmsg ]dbp¶ \yq\XIÄ ImWpIbp­mbn.  Ìnbdn§nsâ ]hÀ kwhn[m\w XIcmdnemhpIbpw skÂ^v dnt«¬ Imcy£aambn {]hÀ¯n¡p¶panÃ.  hml\¯nsâ kkvs]³j³ kwhn[m\¯n \n¶p Nne kab§fn Akzm`mhnIamb i_vZw tIÄ¡p¶p.  hml\w ]cntim[\ XpS§p¶Xn\v ap¼v 41000 IntemaoäÀ HmSnbXmbn HmtUmaoädn ImWpIbp­mbn.  He also deposed before the Forum in tune with his report.  According to the Commissioner power steering and suspension units are defective.  The main allegation of the complainant is also that defective power stearing and making heavy sound while driving.  The commissioner reported that “h­n inspect sN¿pt¼mÄ 41000 IntemaoäÀ HmtUmaoädn ImWn¨ncp¶p. taÂ]dª XIcmdpIÄ C{Xbpw IntemaoäÀ HmSn¨m D­mhnÃ.  Power stearing defect hcnÃ.  Suspension þ\v Akzm`mhnI i_vZap­mhnÃ.”  According to the complainant within 6 months of its purchase eminating heavy sound.  As per Ext.B4, the complainant reported as belt noise and sound from steering.  So B4 substantiates contention of the complaint.  But the Commissioner has no where stated that the vehicle has manufacturing defect.  But it is evident that the power stearing is defective and Commissioner reported that suspension is also defective.  So we are of the opinion that there is unfair practice on the part of opposite parties and hence they are liable to replace the defective parts namely Power Break System, suspension unit and to rectify the defect of oil leakage. The opposite parties are also liable to refund `10,417 received by opposite parties as service and repair charge.  Eventhough the complainant has not produced any docuements to prove that he has suffered financial loss, it can be assumed that he had suffered some loss for which we assess as `5000 and `2000 as cost of the proceedings.  So the opposite parties are liable to replace the power break system and suspension unit and also cure the defect of oil leakage and to make the vehicle road worthy and orders passed accordingly.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to replace power break system and suspension unit and also to cure the defect of oil leakage and to make the vehicle road worthy and to refund `10,417 (Rupees Ten Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen), along with `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and `2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order, otherwise complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012.

                    Sd/-                     Sd/-

                           President             Member          

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Warranty registration form.

A2.   Warranty plan certificate.

A3.   Invoice dated 07.08.09.

A4.   Invoice dated 25.09.09.

A5.   Invoice dated12.02.09.

A6.   Check sheet dated 12.01.09.

A7.   Repair order dated 12.02.09.

A8.   Invoice dated 02.11.09.

A9.   Invoice dated 27.08.09.

A10. Invoice dated 25.07.09.

A11. Invoice dated 06.09.09.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Authorisation letter

B2.  Repair order dated 26.05.08.

B3.  Receipt dated 26.05.08.

B4.  Repair order dated 07.08.08.

B5.  Repair order dated 12.02.09

B6.  Repair order dated 25.07.09.

B7.  Receipt dated 25.07.09.

B8.  Repair order dated 23.11.09.

B9.  Repair order dated 17.12.10.

Exhibits for the Court

C1.  Commission report.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

PW2.  Dineshan Puthalath

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Anand V.V.

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT