Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/16/2014

B.Srisharao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tafe Reach Limited., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Kempraj

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 03.01.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.16/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

B. SirishaRao,

D/o. B. Ganesh Rao,

No.4, Shivaranjani ‘A’ Block,

Tarangini Complex,

Alacrity Flats,

Ambattur Estate,

Chennai – 600 058.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

                                                                                   ..Versus..

 

1. FIAT India Automobiles Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Plot No.B-19, Ranjangaon,

M.I.D.C. Industrial Area,

Taluka: Shirur, District: Pune,

Ranjagaon,

Maharashtra – 412 210.

 

2. Tafe Reach Limited,

Rep. by its Assistant General Manager,

Dealers for the Passenger Cars,

Showroom No.803, Anna Salai, Opp to LIC,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. RDC Service Centre,

Rep. by its Customer Relation Manager,

Workshop No.3, First Street,

Balaji Nagar,

Ekkattuthangal,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

 

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. N. Ganesh

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party :   M/s. C.G. Sunil & others

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party :  M/s. G. Perumal & others

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party :  M/s. R. Gowthaman

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace a new car or refund the full amount being the sale consideration of Rs.9,08,840/- and to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, damages and unfair trade practice with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 31.3.2013 the complainant had purchased a Brand new Fiat Linea-Dynamic Car from the Tafe Reach Limited, the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,08,840/- with Invoice Number “TAFREA-1213-03023” dated:31.03.2013.  The complainant submits that the said vehicle was registered as registration No.TN 18 V 8073.   The sale consideration of Rs.9,08,840/- includes an offer of insurance which was worth about Rs.34,000/-.  But they gave insurance premium only for Rs.21,000/-.   The complainant submits that from the date of inception of purchase, the complainant seen the colour variation in painting, color shade not matching with the whole body of the car and experienced several problems namely car model No., car Model name has been mis spelt.   The complainant submits that the frequent jerks noticed during shifting of gear, functioning problem of front side left hand power window, body lining peeled off, rear LH side power window glass beading peel off, rusting inside the boot.   On 07.05.2013, the complainant had complained the issue directly to “FIAT India Customer Care- Pune People through toll free Phone No.18002095556; and informed them about all the complaint facing with brand new car and the complaint ID No.1-1300-2385.  Finally on 18^th June 2013, the said Mr. Raguram, the Customer Relations Manager informed the complainant to bring the car for whole body painting  to RDC Service Centre.  Then, the complainant left the car in RDC  & Service Centre on 18.06.2013.  After 15 days, Mr. Raguram informed that the whole body repainting approval was rejected by Fiat India Pune and only permission was granted to paint the affected portion.  The complainant was not at all interested in partial painting instead of whole body painting because she had purchased a new car and the paint mismatch found on the whole body of the car, then the complainant taken back her car after 15 days from RDC & Service Centre without any solutions or rectification of the complaints therein. 

2.     The complainant  submits that she approached another service centre which is also came under the 1^st opposite party namely Ramkey Fiat Service Centre at Perungudi on 19.07.2013 regarding the same issue and the Ramkey Fiat Service Centre people take several photographs regarding painting issue and committed to sent it to Pune for whole body painting approval.  After two weeks, the complainant had contacted the Ramkey Fiat Service but there was no response from them.  But by the 3^rd week Ramkey Fiat Service Centre people called the complainant and informed that one Senior person from Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. is visiting their showroom and he will be confirming the approval for whole body repainting after inspection of car hence advised to bring the car to their Service Centre.  But there was neither any repair done nor any assured reply given.  The complainant has been complaining every time again without any proper rectification or solution to all the above, but in vain.  After many frequent calls to AGM of TAFE, there was no reply.   Finally, the complainant wrote a letter to Tafe Reached Limited through registered post on 22.07.2013 regarding the issue but received no reply.   Thereafter, this complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.     The 1^st opposite party states that without prejudice to the above contentions it is respectfully stated that the prime allegation raised by the complainant is that she had noticed a color variation in painting / color shade showing mismatch in the vehicle purchased by her.  Ancillary to the above allegation it is further alleged that the car name is misspelt and instead of Linea it is mentioned as Liena, Jerks occurring during gear shifts, functions problems of the front side left hand window, body lining peeling off, rear LG side power window glass beading peeling off and rusting inside the boot.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant has reported the alleged complaint after one week from the date of purchase.  At the first instance, it is against prudence to believe that the complainant did not show due diligence to examine the vehicle offered  to her by the 2^nd opposite party prior to delivery especially when there is an allegation regarding colour variation  and misspelt in brand name which can apparently be visible at the first instance. 

4.     The 1^st opposite party states that there is absolutely no merit in the allegation that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.34,000/- towards insurance, however an insurance premium of Rs.21,000/- was only issued.   The 1^st opposite party states that when the 3^rd opposite party had taken up the issue with the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party approved the painting of the affected portion of the car.  As per warranty terms and conditions, only affected parts are repaired or replaced.  In case of colour mismatch affected portion will be painted.  It is stated that the warranty terms and conditions are clearly mentioned in the service coupon booklet available with the complainant and the complainant was fully aware of the warranty policies.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and unjust enrichment as alleged in the complaint from the side of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  2^nd  opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant reported certain defects in the car to be rectified, immediately informed the complainant to contact RDC service centre at Ekkattuthangal in Chennai and FIAT customer care at Pune and the complainant also contacted the opposite parties 1 & 3 and they also attended the said car and as such there is no deficiency in service with regard to the 2^nd opposite party.  Furthermore, the dealership with the 1^st opposite party came to an end by 31.03.2013 and as such no direction can be given to the other opposite parties in this regard.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the car as such given by the 1^st opposite party was delivered to the complainant and the alleged defects pointed out by the complainant were rectified by the opposite parties 1 & 3 and as such there is no deficiency in service by the 2^nd opposite party at any point of time and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that as per the complaint, the car FIAT LINEA was purchased by the complainant on 31.03.2013 and taken delivery on the same day after inspecting the same.  The 3^rd opposite party points out that the complainant noticed the variation in colour only after one week from the date of purchase which is unbelievable and cannot be accepted.  Once the car is handed over, it is the duty of the purchaser to inspect the car colour and the condition of the car.  But the complainant states that she noticed the defects only after one week.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the alleged defects are brought to the notice of the 3^rd opposite party only on 18.06.2013 after three months.  The 3^rd opposite party rectified the minor defects and the major one is alleged variation of colour claimed by the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party has intimated the same to the 1^st opposite party to get approval but approval was granted only to paint the affected areas not the whole body.  The 3^rd opposite party clearly stated it in writing to the complainant but the complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the 3^rd opposite party, taken the vehicle against the advice of the 3^rd opposite party on her own volition and approached the RAMKEY FIAT Service Centre at Perungudi. 

7.     The 3^rd opposite party states that once the vehicle was taken by the complainant against the advice of the 3^rd opposite party, this opposite party is not at all responsible for the act of the complainant. The 3^rd opposite party states that since the approval was not granted to the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party rectified the minor defects and intimated the complainant that they got approval to paint the affected areas and also prepared to do it but the complainant not satisfied with the answer of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant has taken the vehicle on her own volition against the advice of the 3^rd opposite party, for which, the 3^rd opposite party is no way responsible.  Now, the 3^rd opposite party got the approval and ready to do full painting job under warranty for the paint mismatch and as gesture of goodwill this opposite party offer one free service package to the complainant and ready to comply their commitments.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service committed by the 3^rd opposite party and the complaint against this opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

8.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.  Inspite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 1 & 3 after entering appearance filed written version but has not come forward to file proof affidavit and documents to prove the contentions raised in their written versions.

9.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the replacement of a new car or refund of a sum of Rs.9,08,840/- being the price of the vehicle as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, damages, unfair trade practice and financial constraints with cost as prayed for?

10.    On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 3 after entering appearance filed written version but has not come forward to file proper proof affidavit and documents to prove the contentions raised in their written version.  Both complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their respective written arguments. Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits and documents.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that on 31.3.2013 the complainant purchased a Fiat Linea-Dynamic Car from the Tafe Reach Limited, the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,08,840/- as per Ex.A1, Invoice.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the said vehicle was registered as registration No.TN 18 V 8073.  Ex.A2 is the Registration Certificate.    Further the contention of the complainant is that from the date of inception of purchase, the complainant seen the colour variation in painting, colour shade not matching with the whole body of the car and experienced several problems namely car model No., car Model name has been misspelt.   But as per Ex.A2 it is correctly spelt as Linea. 

11.    Further the contention of the complainant is that the frequent jerks noticed during shifting of gear, functioning problem of front side left hand power window, body lining peeled off, rear LH side power window glass beading peel off, rusting inside the boot.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A4 & Ex.A5, the alleged defects were approved since the vehicle was under warranty and the said defects were duly noticed by the opposite parties and issued Job Slip and 1^st free service also given.  As per Job slips Ex.A4 & Ex.A5, it is seen that rod vibration on 03^rd another gear was checked up but is admitted that the paints are mismatching RRLH color crome beading check up establishes that except the paint mismatching all other defects has been rectified proves the deficiency in service regarding the colour of the paint.   Further on a careful perusal of entire records, it is seen that eventhough the opposite parties has taken several steps, they have not come forward to comply the defects in mismatching of paints proves the deficiency.  

12.    Further the contention of the complainant is that as per Ex.A3, Insurance Policy a sum of Rs.21,000/- alone expended towards insurance.  But the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards insurance policy.    On a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove such payment of Rs.34,000/-.  The complainant is claiming replacement of vehicle and alternatively repayment of the price of the vehicle with a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.   But the complainant has not taken any steps to prove none of the manufacturing defects in this case.   Equally, for claiming such huge compensation, the complainant has not taken any positive steps for its proof.

13.    The learned Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that the 2^nd opposite party is a dealer entitled only for commission.  The complainant impleaded the 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturer has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Eventhough, the 2^nd opposite party is not liable and no way connected with the alleged defects, the complainant has not proved none of the manufacturing defects in this case for the impugned vehicle. The only allegation is that paint mismatching for that the opposite parties has taken substantial steps while so the complainant filed this case.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the other defects and repairs has been duly complied by the opposite parties is proved from their own documents  Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the claim related to insurance premium which is fixed and premium collected on the basis of the actual value of the car.   The complainant has not produced any document to prove that a sum of Rs.34,000/- paid towards insurance policy also.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that on 31.03.2013, the dealership of the 2^nd opposite party was closed and terminated.  This case is filed on 03.01.2014 by that time, this 2^nd opposite party have no connection with the 1^st opposite party and the complainant as per Ex.B3.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the claim of the complainant is utter false and imaginary.  There is no scope for such claim.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to paint the impugned car according to the specifications since all the other defects has been rectified within one month, failing which, the cost of such painting shall be paid to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to paint the impugned car according to the specifications since all the other defects has been rectified within one month, failing which, the cost of such painting to be paid to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 03.01.2014 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 02.01.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	31.03.2013	Copy of Invoice bill
Ex.A2	01.04.2013	Copy of Registration Certificate
Ex.A3	04.04.2013	Copy of Insurance Certificate
Ex.A4	18.06.2013 to 28.09.2013	Copy of R.D.C. Motor Job Slip
Ex.A5	19.07.2013	Copy of Ramkay Fiat Job Slip
Ex.A6	03.08.2013	Copy of mails to company and others
Ex.A7	12.08.2013	Copy of mail from company to the complainant
Ex.A8	12.09.2013	Copy of consumer help line suggestion
Ex.A9		Copy of complainant mobile phone call records

 

2^nd OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of dealership of FIAT vehicles in the city of Chennai
		Copy of realignment of Fiat distribution activities in India
		Copy of Dealership Termination Letter

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  No Proof Affidavit

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT