Date of Filing:24/01/2011

        Date of Order:09/05/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  9^th DAY OF MAY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 162 OF 2011

Sri. Veeresh .M. Doddannavar,

S/o. Mohan Das,

Aged About 30 years,

Residing at No.69,

18^th Cross, Lakkasandra,

Bangalore-560 030.                                                          ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited,

Village Chak Gujran,

P.O. Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road,

Hoshiarpur-146 022,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

(2) P.D.S. Motors Private Limited,

# 29/2, Doddanakundi,

Off. Marathalli, Outer ring road,

K.R. Puram, Bangalore-560 037.

Rep. by its Authorized

Signatory/Managing Director.                                    …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.9,00,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant purchased vehicle bearing No. KA-01-D-560 from the opposite party for Rs.6,30,000/- Sonalik’s RHINO RX DLX EURO-II IMV maxi cab with the financial assistance from International Autotrac Finance Limited, which was introduced by the opposite parties.  When the vehicle was ready for taking delivery the complainant surprised to see that except the exteriors most of the interiors were in bad condition.  Even than on the promises of opposite party and as the complainant had fixed the auspicious day to perform pooja and on the statement and advice of the opposite party that in the registration certificate the chassis number and engine number has already been mentioned and they will rectify it later, he purchased the vehicle on 09.05.2008 believing the said words.  It was shocked and surprised to the complainant that engine was noisy, there was continuous rattling sounds at the doors, leakage of oil, the vehicle used to stop now and then on the roads frequently.  The complainant had also found other defects within a short drive from the show room to the place of performing Pooja.  When the complainant took back the vehicle to the show room, on the next day the complainant had very bad response from the service station.  The complainant approached the marketing executive of the opposite party who said they are not responsible after the sale.  Even after several visits to the show room, service station and despite repeated requests and reminders the opposite parties fails to look in to the manufacturing defects.  The complainant met Mr. M.V. Sharath, service station chief who instructed concerned to rectify the manufacturing defects.  But there was no improvement.  The complainant requested the concerned to place the matter before the higher authorities.  The vehicle stops suddenly and automatically if driven continuously for 50 to 60 kilometers.  If it is driven outside Bangalore for a short distance of 100 kilometers it will have problem.  The vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2009 and the major accidental repairs was done through the insurance coverage and the remaining cost has been paid by the complainant out of his own pocket.  Hence the complainant issued the notice to the opposite parties on 12.02.2010.  The opposite parties gave an untenable reply.  The complainant is entitled to Rs.9,00,000/-.

2(a).  In brief the version of the first opposite party are:-

The opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicles with standardized techniques and quality control system of ISO-9001 and 14001.  The vehicles are also approved by ARAI, Pune.  The vehicle was taken delivery on 09.05.2008 had a warranty period of 1 year or 50,000 kilometers which ever earlier.  The major repair done was after the said vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2009 almost entire vehicle had to be repaired.  The job-card demonstrate that the entire vehicle including the Chassis had to be repaired.  It demonstrate the intensity of the accident.  After the accident for the first time on 19.02.2010 after lapse of nearly two years complainant realized that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle and issued a notice and it has been properly replied.  At the time the vehicle met with an accident, it had already run 51981 kilometers in a span of one year two months.  The vehicle has been financed by M/s. International Autotrac Finance Company Limited, a sister concern of opposite party No.1.  Still there are 19 installments pending to be paid to the said company, the said company has filed a case against the complainant.  As a counter blast to that this complaint is filed.  The complainant had come to the showroom of the opposite party No.2, after due verification, after being fully convinced with the quality of the vehicle in question and after knowing the price of the vehicle, its competitiveness he had offered to purchase the said vehicle, purchased the vehicle to meet his requirements to run the vehicle for his business purpose as Taxi for commercial use, and took delivery of the vehicle on 09.05.2008.  The complainant himself had arranged for financial assistance.  There was no damage to the vehicle at the time of delivery.  The engine of the vehicle was in good running condition, doors never rattled, there was no oil leakage.  The alleged defects were due to accident of the vehicle.  The vehicle never stopped at any kilometers, nor it was informed to the opposite party at any point of time.  The complainant never visited the opposite party and complained of the defects nor regarding services.  The allegation with respect to M.V. Sharath is absolutely false.  There is no manufacturing defect much less defect in the vehicle.  The opposite party never advised the complainant to run the vehicle for a long distance.  The notice and the reply are admitted.

2(b).  In brief the version of opposite party No.2 are:-

          The opposite party No.2 is only a dealer of opposite party No.1 in Bangalore and marketing Rhino brand of vehicles.  The complainant had come to the show room of the opposite party and the executives showed the various models of the vehicles.  The complainant liked and selected Rhino RX DLX Euro-II IMV, took a trial run and expressed his need of finance to fund the purchase of the vehicle.  Accordingly International Autotrac Finance Limited was introduced to the complainant.  The complainant after full satisfaction with the vehicle took delivery of the same.  There was no damage to the vehicle at any point of time before delivery, nor there is any promise made by this opposite party.  There is no manufacturing defect.  Whenever the vehicle was brought for repair/maintains it was attended to promptly.  Mr. Sharath was very helpful to the complainant and he had not made any promises or directions as stated by the complainant.  If the allegations were to be true the complainant could have approached this Forum earlier.  The complaint is barred by time.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.  The vehicle had no manufacturing defect.  The notice issued was properly replied.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the complainant had filed his affidavit and also the affidavit of Mr. Mathews Jacob along with certain documents.  The first opposite party as stated Supra has filed his evidence/objection by way of Affidavit.  The second opposite party did not turn up at all, subsequently after filing of the version.  The complainant has filed written arguments.  Subsequently the opposite party did not turn up.  Hence perused the records.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
2. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant?
3. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)         :           In the Negative

Point (C)                    :           As per the final Order

                                      for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A to C:-

6.       In this case originally the first opposite party was Sonalika International Tractors Limited who engaged the services of Sri. Kiran Kumar, Chandra Shekar, Advocates and filed pleadings contending that they are not the manufacturer of the said car and it is Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited.  Accordingly the complainant had made applications to delete Sonalika International Tractors Limited and in its place to implead Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited as the manufacture i.e., the first opposite party.  In this case the notice was sent to Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited who engaged the service of the same advocates Sri. Kiran Kumar and Chandra Shekar and on hearing, the I.A.s were allowed.  The Sonalika International Tractors Limited was deleted and in its place the Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited were impleaded.  An opportunity was given to impleaded first opposite party to file its pleadings, its version.  The same advocate filed the evidence cum objection by way of affidavit of the Sonalika International Cars & Motors Limited.

7.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record filed by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question Rhino RX DLX EURO-II Imv maxi cab and the second opposite party is its dealer.  The complainant visited the second opposite party’s showroom and after obtaining financial assistance from the International Autotrac Finance Limited a sister concern of the opposite parties, purchased the vehicle on 09.05.2008 bearing registration No. KA-01-D-560 and he took delivery of the said vehicle on the very date.

8.       The complainant stated that on the date of taking delivery of the vehicle he found that, entire interior of the vehicle was in broken stage, it is specifically denied by the opposite parties.  If it were to be so, why he took delivery on that day?  Merely to perform Pooja!  Merely the vehicle is already registered!  How can he take delivery of the said vehicle?  This itself goes to show that it is an afterthought made by the complainant as rightly contended by the opposite parties in their version and in the affidavit.

9.       In any event the complainant has stated that immediately after taking delivery while he was taking the vehicle to his house, he found the engine was noisy, continuous rattling sound at the doors, leakage of oil, the vehicle used to stop now and then on the road frequently, after performing Pooja on the same day, he took the vehicle to the opposite party on the following day and these are the manufacturing defects.  This has been denied by the opposite party.  If he had found the defects the manufacturing defect on 09.05.2008 he should have filed the complaint 09.04.2010 before this Forum.  But this complaint is filed on 24.01.2011 long after two years.  Hence it is barred by time as rightly contended by the opposite parties in their version.

10.     The only grievance of the complainant was that the vehicle had the problems of noisy engine, rattling sound from the doors, leakage of the oil.  This can never be termed as manufacturing defect.  It is seen from undisputed job-cards that the complainant after purchasing and taking delivery of the vehicle on 09.05.2008 he had taken the vehicle for service center on 19.05.2008 at a running of 1085 kilometers and there was no engine noisy, leakage of oil or rattling sound of the doors or subjecting of the vehicle was mentioned in the job-card, called as tax invoice.  That is the case with the second service on 05.06.2008 at 4455 kilometers.  This itself clearly goes to show from 19.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 the vehicle had run for more than 3,000 kilometers.  If the vehicle had any manufacturing defect how can it ply 3000 kilometers within 16 days.  Further it is seen that on 20.06.2008 the complainant had taken the vehicle at a kilometer reading of 7331 for door scratch and Super bulk that’s all.  These job-cards goes to show that, there was no manufacturing defect.  It is a bad driving of the complainant and the vehicle had run more than 3000 kilometers for 15 days.  Further it is seen that on 05.08.2008 the complainant had taken the vehicle at a kilometer raiding of 9989.  Here also no oil leakage, no rattling sound of the doors, nor stopping of the vehicle on a short distance are mentioned.  The minor repairs owing to wear and tear were attended to.  Further it is seen on 10.09.2008 the complainant had taken the vehicle at a kilometer reading of 14785.  That means within 35 days the vehicle had been plied for more than 5000 kilometers.  Here also it is seen there is no manufacturing defects; it is only regarding the minor problems which has been attended to.  That is the case with respect to the job-card dated: 27.09.2008 at a kilometer reading of 15647, job-card dated: 23.10.2008 at a kilometer reading of 19226, job-card dated: 31.10.2008, 03.11.2008, where also no manufacturing defect has been mentioned.  This is the case with the job-card dated: 05.01.2009 at the kilometer reading of 29741, job-card dated: 23.01.2009 at the kilometer reading of 31874, job-card dated: 07.02.2009 at a kilometer reading of 34470, job-card dated: 11.02.2009 at 34,490, job-card dated: 02.09.2009 at a kilometer of 51901, job-card dated: 07.12.2009 at a kilometer of 65539.  These job-cards are signed by the complainant, disproves that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defects.

11.     The vehicle met with an accident on or about 01.06.2009 and it was delivered to the opposite party’s service station for repairs.  It is seen it was a major accident and even the chassis have to be repaired and after repair the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant.  Up to that complainant never laid his claim against the opposite party regarding the alleged manufacturing defects.  After the vehicle had met with an accident, repaired and took delivery back the complainant kept quite thereafter for a long time and only on 19.02.2010 he woke-up and issued notice alleging manufacturing defects.  The vehicle was met with an accident and it was repaired by the opposite party and the insurance company has paid certain amount.  Now he cannot turn round and say that the vehicle had any manufacturing defects.  The complainant had produced certain photographs which does not prove that it had any manufacturing defects.  When the vehicle had met with a major accident, after that this photographs were taken, it cannot attribute the accident to the manufacturing defects or the photographs will not say that it was taken before the accident.  If the vehicle had any manufacturing defects how the complainant could ply the vehicle for more than 50,000 kilometers within a span of eight months.  As stated Supra the plying of the vehicle for Taxi was in a bad taste and bad drive.

12.     The complainant has filed the affidavit of one Mr.Mathews Jacob, the alleged proprietor of M/s. Miles Automotive Solutions and his report on 08.03.2011.  That means on 08.03.2011 after filing of this case he has noticed engine noise, oil leakage, Power steering fluid leak, Gear Oil Leak, Differential oil leak, Clutch system hard in operation, Gear shifting issues and gear slippage, breaking inefficiency and says an in-depth technical inspection were involved, dis-assembled of the affected parts so that he can give the estimate.  This does not prove any manufacturing defect.  It is only after the accident this Mathews Jacob had seen the vehicle.  What is his technical qualification? Whether he is an expert or not? Is not at all stated.  The complainant never got the vehicle examined by any expert under the Consumer Protection Act to know that the vehicle had any manufacturing defects.  After running the vehicle for more than fifty thousand kilometers, meeting with an accident, getting it repaired, it cannot be said that it had any manufacturing defect by any person.

13.     In this case the complainant had made an application under section 13(1)(4)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to dismantle the car and verify and to report by Mathews Jacob.  That application was rejected on 18.03.2011 and that order has become final as there is no reason to redo the said application again.  The complainant was at liberty to get any expert to thoroughly search the whole vehicle to find any manufacturing defect if any and produced his report.  But that has not been done.

14.     How complainant ‘FELT’ of manufacturing defect, before filing this complaint?  What are the reasons?  How it is manufacturing defect?  Is not at all whispered.  The decision stated in AIR 2004 SC 1529, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no dispute about the proposition stated therein.  After running the vehicle about 60,000 kilometers and damaging the vehicle by an accident, getting the money for that repair from the insurance company now the complainant cannot turn around and say that it has manufacturing defect as stated Supra.

15.     Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 9^th Day of May 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT