CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 14/2010
Friday, the 21st day of January, 2011
Petitioner : Babu Sebastian,
Vadakkedath House,
Mattakkara P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. N.T Gopakumar)
Vs.
Opposite party : Popular Hundai
Popular Motor World (P) Ltd.
Kodimatha, Kottayam
reptd. by its Service Manager,
Kottayam.
(By Adv.Royce Chirayil)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 16..1..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner on 29..3..2007 purchased a Santro Car from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 3,36,711/-. At the time of purchase of the car, as per the direction of the opposite party, petitioner joined in the scheme of an extended warrantee by remitting an amount of Rs. 1950 with the opposite party. Opposite party conducted all services of the vehicle. On 9/09 the month of vehicle shown starting trouble. Petitioner intimated the matter to the opposite party. The mechanic of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and opined that the trouble can not be detected. So, vehicle is to be towed to the workshop of the opposite party and thus the vehicle was towed to the work shop of opposite party. On 30..9..2009 opposite party intimated the petitioner that the defects of the vehicle were cured. According to the petitioner Since the defects of the vehicle were during the extended warrantee period opposite party had the duty to cure the defect of the vehicle free of costs. But the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 4337/- as repairing charges and the petitioner remitted the same. According to the petitioner towing of a brand new vehicle to the workshop for a simple starting trouble to the starter is purposeful and is in order to extract money from the petitioner. Due to the towing of the vehicle the number plate and front bumper were damaged. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 4347/- with 12% interest. Petitioner claims Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings and compensation.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petition is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The certificate of extended warrantee was issued by Hundai Motors. The necessary opposite party is only dealer and authorised workshop of Hundai workshop. Since the parties by virtue of the terms of contract entered in the certificate of extended warrantee has selected courts in Chennai as a forum having jurisdiction this Fora has no jurisdiction. Opposite party admitted the purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party on 27..3..2007 opposite party denied the 2 periodical service as alleged in the petition. Warrantee as well as extended warrantee is available only for those customers who perform service of the vehicle by an authorised dealer or service centre in accordance with the owners manual and service book let. Petitioner has deviated from the service of dealer. As per the owner’s manual, the interval between any two consecutive services should not exceed more than six months. In clause 7 (2) of the owner’s manual that the new vehicle warranty may be invalidated if the routine maintenance operations are not performed in line with the recommendation out line. Opposite party admitted that on 30..9..2009 vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party. Since complainant has violated the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant he is not eligible for the extended warrantee. Opposite party denied the alleged damages sustained to the vehicle while it was taken to the workshop. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
According to the opposite party since the contract of warrantee is executed between petitioner and the Hundai Motors. Hundai motors is a necessary party. By non mentioning of hundai motors in the party array. Petition is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Further more by virtue of the terms of contract this forum has no jurisdiction. Petitioner produced the extended warrantee registration form and the said document is marked as Ext. A2. As per Ext. A2 the extended warrantee is between petitioner and Hundai Motors. Admittedly the amount of extended warrantee is collected by the opposite party. The privity of contract is between the opposite party and the petitioner. So non mentioning of the Hundai Motors in the party array will not defeat the case of the petitioner. As per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of any other law but in addition. So by including the clause in the agreement that the Chennai Courts Forum has got jurisdiction will not preclude the petitioner from filing a petition before this Forum. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In Ext. A2 document as clause No. 2 in the caption ‘what is covered’? It is stated that if any defect is found it will be repaired at no cost to the owner for a parts or labour. According to the opposite party since the vehicle was not used or serviced in accordance with the owners manual petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the warrantee. Here opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the petitioner violated the conditions stated in the owner’s manual. Further more from Ext. A2 document it can be seen that the opposite party has a bounden duty to cure the defects at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. Ext. A4 is the bill given to the petitioner for repair charges for an amount of Rs. 4337/-. In the reverse side of Ext. A4. it is stated that corner of bumper is permitted to paint and the number plate will be levelled on next service free of costs. So, From the Ext. A4(a) it can be seen that the allegation of the petitioner that vehicle damages were caused to the number plate and bumper is true. In our view act of the opposite party in accepting the amount for the labour in violation of the Ext. A2 extended warrantee amounts to clear deficiency in service. So point No. 2 is found accordingly.
Point No. 3
In view of the finding in point No. 1 and 2 petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4337/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Without saying what had happened caused much hardship and sufferings to the petitioner so opposite party is ordered to pay compensation to the petitioner so, we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of a copy of order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21st day of January,2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Customer account settlement voucher Dtd: 26..3..2007
Ext. A2 Extended warrantee registration form Dtd: 29..3..2007
Ext. A3: Repair order
Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 30..9..2009
Ext. A4(a) Undertaking of the opposite party
Documents for the Opposite party
Ext. B1: Repair Order.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
