Kerala

Kottayam

CC/178/2010

Sajeesh K Luckose - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sjoda Auto India LTd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2010

ORDER


KottayamConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Civil Station, Kottayam
CC NO. 178 Of 2010
1. Sajeesh K LuckoseKaruparukalayil House, perumpaikad PO ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Sjoda Auto India LTdMarikar Engnrs Pvt Ltd, Skoda SERvice IV/1389, Eloor RD, North Kalamassery, Cochin. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas ,MemberHONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 31 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
 
            Complainant received delivery of new Skoda Car on 12/11/2009, with engine number BVM 401775 manufactured by the opposite party on full payment of its market value. As per the warranty card issued by the opposite party, they are bound to provide free service of the vehicle including the rectification of its manufacturing defects causing on any part, during the period of two years from the date of delivery. On 26/05/2010, its clutch with fly wheel assembly became not operating suddenly due to the manufacturing defect. On 26/05/2010 itself, the supplier took custody of the vehicle for rectifying the defects. The opposite party rectified the defects after taking a very long period in which the complainant happened to use a rental car for 21 days for which a sum of Rs.10,500/- was incurred. The opposite party returned the car after curing defects on 23/06/2010 only after legally charging a sum of Rs. 21,202/- towards rectification charges. The complainant being the buyer customer,  the said manufacturing defect should have rectified, free of cost as per warranty conditions. The opposite party did not agree for it, hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs. 31,702/- towards expenses incurred for repairing and taking rental car, Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs.
            Notice was served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was called absent. Hence set expartee.
Points for consideration are:
i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the
part of opposite party?
ii)                   Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and exhibits A1 to A3.
Point No.1.
Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents. The
complainant produced the original warranty card and it is marked as Ext.A1. As per Ext.A1, 2 year warranty is offered by the opposite party for brand new Skoda cars. The delivery date recorded in Ext.A1 is 12-11-09. The original invoice for Rs.21,202/- for the alleged repairing works is produced and it is marked as exhibit A2. Ext.A2 is dtd
 23-05-2010. That means the alleged defect occured within six months of its purchase. The complainant alleged that clutch with fly wheel assembly became not operating due to manufacturing defect. The complainant further alleged that as the opposite party took a very long period for the rectification works he had to use a rental car for 21 days for which a sum of Rs.10,500/- was incurred. Evidencing the aforesaid allegation complainant produced an original receipt dtd 17-6-2010 for Rs. 10,500/- issued by Pullathil Travels. Eventhough a receipt for Rs.10,500/- is produced, we feel that a compensation of Rs.7000/- will be reasonable. As the opposite party chose not to contest the allegations levelled against them remain unchallenged. In Ext.A1 warranty card, there is an exclusion clause that the warranty cannot cover any natural wear-and-tear like clutch disc, brake pads, brake disc------- windscreen etc. Eventhough clutch disc of price Rs. 3,631.35/- is included as the second item of Ext.A2 invoice, we don’t think              seven months will cause a natural wear-and tear.
 
            As the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegations levelled against them remain unchallenged. The act of opposite party in rectifying the defects after taking a long period and charging a sum of Rs.21,202/- towards rectification charges while the vehicle was having warranty cover is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
            In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed.
            The opposite party will refund the repairing charges of Rs.21,202/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.7000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/-.
            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
 
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-Original warranty card
Ext.A2-Original invoice dtd 23/6/10
Ext.A3-Original receipt dtd 17-06-10
Documents of the opposite party
Nil

By Order


[HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member