BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2016
Filed on : 12-06-2012
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.348/2012
Between
Simon John, : Complainant
S/o. Late M.C. John, (By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan,
Director, M/s. Highrange Foods Pvt. Ltd., Penta Queen, Padivattom,
28/3030, Kadavanthara, Kakkanadu)
Kochi-682 020.
And
1. Skoda Auto India, : Opposite parties
Plot No. A/1/1 Shendra, (party-in-person)
Five Star Industrial Area MIDC,
Tq/District, Aurangabad,
Pin-431 201,
rep. by its General Manager.
2. Marikar Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
Priya Estate, NH Bypass road,
Thammanom P.O.,
Kochi-682 032.
Rep. by its Manager.
ORDER
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant’s Case.
The 2nd opposite party M/s Marikar Engineers (P) Ltd, sold a Skoda Laura Car manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 22-09-2011 which was later registered as KL 07-BS 5444. The manufacturer had provided one year warranty and it was extended for another 3 years on payment. The complainant noticed a howling sound from the engine and some sound from the dash board, within one month of the date of purchase, and it was informed to the 2nd opposite party. Though the opposite party had cleared the dash board sound, the howling noise of the engine was not rectified and the complainant was informed that it was only a minor problem, and it can be checked and rectified during the 1st service. The 2nd opposite party did not care to cure the abnormal engine sound even during the 1st service. The opposite party could not rectify the defect and hence it was a manufacturing defect. The delivery of a defective car to the complainant and the non-attention to the grievance of the complainant is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The 1st opposite party is therefore liable to replace the defective car, with a new one or to refund the amount collected as price of the defective car, with compensation and cost.
Notices were issued to both opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version negating the assertions in the complaint.
Version of the 1st opposite party.
The purchase of the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party and the nature of extended warranty etc. averred in the complaint is admitted. The allegation that the vehicle had howling sound within one month of the purchase is incorrect. After the purchase, the vehicle was brought to the opposite party No 2, only for an accident repairs on 16-12-2011. At that time the spoiler was painted and all other concerns were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Later a complaint was registered with the opposite party that there was a humming sound fro0m the engine when the vehicle attains a speed of more than 80 Kilometres per hour. Even though the 2nd opposite party had rectified it initially, the complaint was repeated and it was entered into the “Direct Information System Service”. The 1st opposite party got the vehicle checked through the Vehicle diagnostic tester/Vehicle analysis system, which is computer linked vehicle check-up software. After a thorough check up the 1st opposite party advised to change the turbo charger and the 2nd opposite party had replaced the turbocharger on 10-03-2012, when the odometer reading was 11,572 KM. Even after the turbo charger was changed, the complainant was not happy with the engine sound. Later the 1st opposite party has sent an engineer to inspect the vehicle and after the inspection, on 10-07-2012, the differential bearing was changed and other required works were done, and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 20-09-2012. To the periodic follow up calls to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party, it was reported that the complaint was rectified. Hence the allegation of the complainant that there was engine problem was false and the complaint was resolved and rectified. The allegation that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was defective is false. There was no manufacturing defect for the vehicle as alleged. It is only natural that some parts of the vehicle developing complaints due to many factors such as driving habits, improper usage etc. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. There is no cause of action for the complainant. The complaint is sought to be dismissed.
The second opposite party had also filed a version taking the very same contentions raised by the 1st opposite party in their version.
The evidence in this case consists of Ext A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. The opposite parties examined DW1 and DW2. Ext C1 commission report was marked subject to objection.
Issues.
(1).Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged ?.
(2).Relief and cost.
9. Issue No. 1.
10. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 22-09-2011. According to the complainant the vehicle had a humming sound from its engine after 3 months of the purchase. The opposite party had refuted the complainant’s case that the vehicle had manufacturing defects. The complainant in his complaint did not mention about the change of differential bearing. The complainant was using the vehicle continuously even after alleging the complaint of humming sound. The complaint was filed on 12-06-2012. Even while the complainant was using the vehicle, he had applied for the inspection of the vehicle by an expert only on 05-08-2013, as per I.A. 331/2013. When the expert examined t6he vehicle the odometer of the vehicle was not working. However the odometer shown in the meter as on the date it went off is not seen shown in the report. The complainant was not examined to prove the allegations and to explain the delay caused in requesting for the appointment of an expert commission, especially when the allegation was that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. Ext A1 is the purchase invoice pertaining to the car in question. Ext A2 is the copy of the registration certificate which would go to show that the car was registered in the name of the ‘Director, High Range Foods Private Limited. Nothing has been brought in evidence to show that the complainant is the director duly authorised to file this complaint before this forum, for and on behalf of M/s High Range Food products (P) Ltd.
11. Ext A3 is the first complaint aired by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party regarding the humming noise. The odometer reading at that time was 16094, as per Ext A3. Therefore it is seen that the car had done 16,094 Kms by the time the 1st humming sound was heard. Evidence of DW2 would go to show that the complaint was properly rectified by the opposite party No. 2. The evidence of the expert commissioner who was examined as DW1 in this case would go to show that he was inspecting a Skoda Laura car for the first time in this case. He also admitted that as per the service history of the vehicle it had two accident repairs, before its examination by the expert witness. DW1 was not in a position to point out as to what was the manufacturing defect of the car.
12. In the above circumstances and evidence brought in this case, we are unable to find any sort of deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in this case. The issue is accordingly found against the complainant.
12. Issue No 2.
13. In the result, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly we dismiss the complaint. However we do not propose to pass any orders as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2016
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 22-09-2011
A2 : Copy of certificate of registration
A3 : Copy of workshop order
C1 : Commission report dt. 10-07-2014
Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil
Depositions:
DW1 : Antony B.J
DW2 : Sajith Kumar
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post : By Hand:
