Date of Filing      : 19.03.2018

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 27.05.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                             ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com.,                                                                    ….. MEMBER-II

 CC. No.02/2018

THIS FRIDAY, THE 27^TH  DAY OF MAY 2022

C.Govindaraj,

S/o.Chandra Babu,

No.4/39, Balaji Nagar, 3^rd Street,

Paraniputhur Post,

Iyyappanthangal, Chennai -600 122.                           ....Complainant.

                                                   //Vs//

1.The Manager, Sri Motors,

   Old No.58, New No.47,

   Poonamallee High Road,

   Kattupakkam, Chennai -600 056.

2.The Manager,

   India Yamaha Motors Private Limited,

   Plot No.VVI, Sriperumpudur, SIPCOT Industrial Park,

   Velam Vadangal Village, Kancheepuram – 602 105,

   Tamil Nadu.

3.The Chairman, India Yamaha Motors, Private Limited,

   A-3, Industrial Area, Noida, Dadri Road,

   Sarajpur, Gautham Budh Nagar,

   Uttarpradesh – 201 306.                                   ....Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                : M/s.V.K.Sundari, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party         : ex-parte

Counsel for the 2^nd&3^rd Ops                 : Mrs. Inthu Karunakaran, Adv.,

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 19.05.2022 in the presence of M/s.V.K.Sundari, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.Inthu Karunakaran, Advocate counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties,  upon written arguments treated as oral arguments of the both sides and upon perusing the documents and evidences, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

The present complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the vehicle with manufacturing defects and to direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the vehicle of Rs.67,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for  unfair trade practice and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony along with cost of the complaint.

Crux of complainant’s allegations:

The complainant purchased the two wheeler Yamaha Model Saluto BS III from the 1^st opposite party on 09.03.2017 by paying an advance payment of Rs.1000/- towards booking the vehicle and by paying the final sale price of Rs.66,000/- for which a cash receipt dated 23.03.2017 was issued by 1^st opposite party.  The vehicle was without defects until three months and on 20.07.2017 when the complainant took the vehicle with his niece to drop him in school suddenly fire started emanating from the vehicle’s engine which was extinguished by some nearby third persons. A police complaint was also given with regard to the same.  The 1^st opposite party was also informed on the same day but there was no response from them.  In spite of several request to the 1^st opposite party to reveal the reason for fire the 1^st opposite party failed to give any reply.  Thus the complaint came to be filed aggrieved by the act of opposite parties and with the reliefs as mentioned above. 

Defense of the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 by way of Written Version:-

In spite of sufficient notice, the 1^st opposite party remained absent and was set ex-parte on 08.05.2018.  The opposite parties 2 and 3 appeared and filed written version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle only after completing the process of PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection) up to the satisfaction with regard to the working conditions of the vehicle.  It is further submitted that a warranty period of two years or 30,000/- kms whichever earlier has been provided to the vehicle.  The opposite parties also under took to repair and replace any parts of the vehicle if it was found to have manufacturing defects.  They relied upon the Service Engineer’s Report who examined the vehicle and opined that the alleged fire occurred due to some external factor and was not attributable to any defects in the motor cycle.  Further it was observed that neither there was any short circuits or any burnt mark, whatsoever, on the battery terminal fitted at the other side i.e. right hand side of the Motorcycle. No leakage of fuel from the fuel tank or fuel tap or any short circuit on wiring found.  Out of good will even though there was no manufacturing defects in the vehicle the opposite parties agreed to replace the parts which were burnt but the complainant refused for the same, thus contending that there was no deficiency in service on their part sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A10 and on the side of 2^nd &3^rd opposite parties proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to B6 were submitted.

Point for consideration:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the vehicle Yamaha Model Saluto BS III with inherent manufacturing defects and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point:

The complainant along with his pleadings had filed the following documents to prove her contentions;

1. Advance payment receipt dated 09.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Final payment of Rs.66,000/- for the vehicle dated 23.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Registration Certificate and Insurance copy was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Emails sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 07.08.2017 & 09.08.2017 were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A6;
5. Complaint sent to the Insurance Company dated 31.08.2017was marked as Ex.A7;
6. Complaint lodged with police station dated 01.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A8;
7. Legal notice and acknowledgement cards dated 18.09.2017 were marked as Ex.A9 & Ex.A10;

On the side of 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties, the following documents were filed;

1. The copy of Board Resolution dated 17.02.2012 was marked as Ex.B1;
2. Copy of free service and warranty was marked as Ex.B2;
3. Copy of Job Card No.11786 dated 20.07.2017 was marked as Ex.B3;
4. Copy of photo of the Motorcycle was marked as Ex.B4;
5. Copy of Internal Office Memo dated 07.08.2017 was marked as Ex.B5;
6. Copy of Reply to the legal notice of the complainant along with postal receipts dated 30.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B6;

7. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed for inspection of the vehicle by the Department of Auto Mobile Engineering, Anna University, Madras Institute of Technology and filed report was marked as Ex.C1;

The matter when came up for oral arguments it is submitted by both the counsels that written arguments may be considered as oral argument and orders may be passed.  Hence we perused the pleadings, documents and written arguments filed by both parties. 

As we have discussed the complaint allegations and the defence elaborately the same needs no repetition.  The complainant had filed the written arguments stating that he purchased the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party and the said vehicle got fire on 20.07.2017 when the same was parked in front of a School and consequently a police complaint was also lodged for the fire incident which was later closed stating as

 “this is with reference to your complaint No.IC31968-H6VO, as per the feedback received from Dealer ship and field staff, complaint is closed as customer demand could not be fulfilled due IYM & dealer normal warranty police (external damage: vehicle few parts burn: demanding to replace on FOC basis under warranty)”

 The complainant also submitted a decision rendered by various State Commissions in support of his contentions that he should be paid a consolidated sum as compensation after the defects in the vehicle were removed.  He further submitted that in the circumstances of the case no report from an independent expert is necessary and sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

The gist of the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties is that the Manager and the Chairman are not necessary parties to the complaint and that the Motor Cycle was properly working until the incident of fire on the seat cover of the vehicle.  Further in support of his defence he relied upon the Service Engineer’s Report.  They also rely upon various decisions in support of their contentions that there should be an expert opinion for proving manufacturing defects.  It is also submitted that they were always ready to rectify the defects for which the complainant is not agreeable.

On analysing the documents filed by both parties and the court documents Ex.C1 filed by the Advocate Commissioner, the expert opinion given by the Department of Auto Mobile Engineering, Anna University, Madras Institute of Technology.  We are of the opinion that the complainant was not successful in proving his allegations that the vehicle sold to him by 1^st opposite party suffers from inherent manufacturing defect.  Our view is further supported by the expert opinion (Ex.C1) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle resulting in the fire accident as in their words;

“The committee inspected the vehicle along with the Petitioner and Respondent.  The observations are given below”.

1. The vehicle was dismantled with the support of mechanics and the electrical connections were checked, for any short-circuiting problem or any damages and found that, there is no such kind of problem/damages.

2. Then the mechanics are tried to start the vehicle, but due to long period of parking and fuel quality degradation the vehicle has not started.

3. Hence, the vehicle carburettor was cleaned and the fuel in the fuel tank was also replaced.

4. Then the vehicle was started and the static tests were carried out.  No symptom for the firing was observed.

5. The fire affected area (Side Shield) was removed, inspected and found that the fire source may be from outside vehicle.

6. Also, it was observed that, the fuel leakage from the float chamber through the overflow was seen even after servicing the carburettor.

7. Hence, it was suspect that the fuel leakage through the overflow line and the external fire source may cause the fire on the vehicle”.

Therefore the report is very clear that the source for the fire in the vehicle is only from outside the vehicle and not due to any problem of short circuiting or any other similar defects in the vehicle.  Further the opposite parties fairly submitted in their written version and written arguments that they were always ready to rectify or replace any part of the vehicle if found defective. Even at the time of the incident the report of the Service Engineer’s Report on inspection of the vehicle is that the alleged fire had occurred due to some external factors not attributable to any defect in the Motor Cycle.  In such circumstances in the absence of any concrete proof that the vehicle suffers with some inherent manufacturing defects, we are not in a position to accept the case of the complainant.    Hence we answer the point holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the vehicle.  Thus the point is answered in negative as against the complainant and in affirmative to the opposite parties.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of May 2022.

          -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                                                                                                       

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties:-

           Advocate Commissioner Report:

       -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                       -Sd-                                 

 MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT