O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: Complainant, an hemophilic patient purchased a Tata Winger Full Option Ambulance manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.8,02,892/- on 21-12-2012. He purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood and for his journeys for his routine medical checkup and for using for the Pradeeksha Consumer and Charitable Society of which he is the Secretary. On the 1st week of the purchase itself complaints of top gear slipping, occurred and it was intimated to the opposite party. Accordingly the said complaint was repaired on 28-02-2013 at the service centre at Thiruvananthapuram. But the same complaint repeated on several occasions and on 08-03-2013 the gear box was replaced. Thereafter occurred slipping of 2nd gear and it was rectified on 17-04-2013. But the said defect is not fully repaired. Thereafter also complaints of slipping of the gear, low pickup, complaints of high sound while on A.C, clutch complaint, leakage of oil from the gear box, low mileage and complaints to front tyres etc. were occurred on various occasion. On all occasions the authorized service centre of the opposite parties had done certain repairs. But even after the repairs also the entire complaints are not fully or effectively repaired. Due to the said reasons many breakdowns are also occurred while the said vehicle was caring patients to the hospitals. Because of the above said complaints of the said vehicle the complainant is put to irreparable injury losses and sufferings including default in C.C payments, which caused financial losses or mental agony to the complainant. The repeated complaints of the vehicle and the non-rectification of the complaints on permanent basis is due to the manufacturing defect of the said vehicle. So the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties either for the return of Rs.8,02,892/- the price of the vehicle with 18% interest or to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakhs and the cost of this proceedings.
3. In this case both opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions: But the contentions of the opposite parties are one and the same and hence we are not narrating the versions separately.
4. The main contentions of the opposite parties is as follows: Opposite party admitted the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The allegation that complaints occurred in the 1st week itself is false. The complaint of gear slipping was reported only on 28-08-2013 at the 1st service at 3601 km. which was perfectly repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The 4th gear slipping was reported on 8-03-2013 at 4625 km which was observed that the 4th gear shifter sleeve was worn out prematurely and this was happened due to the panic shifting of gear from high gear to low gear at more than specified speed. The said complaint was also rectified. The 2nd gear slipping was again reported during 2nd free services on 17-04-2013 at 5923km. The said complaint is also observed as a consequence of improper gear shifting and the said complaint was rectified under warranty. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, opposite parties are obliged only to repair the vehicle, but despite the above, as a courtesy for the satisfaction of the consumer, opposite parties replaced the gearbox itself though the cause of the complaints was due to rough riding. The said repairs is also done to the satisfaction of the complainant and he had given his satisfaction letter also. The allegation of no mileage and the high sound while switching the air conditioner is also false. None of the said complaints are found in spite of thorough examinations by the expert technicians. The above said high sound is connected with the clutch complaint as alleged by the complainant is an utter false as the clutch system and the A.C are different parts which are not connected to each other. This submission itself would lead to the conclusion that the entire allegation in the complaint were on account of the mistaken notions of the complainant. The alleged breakdown dated 13.05.2013 is absolutely false as no such incident was reported to the opposite parties. The allegation regarding the tyre is also false as the tyre condition will depends upon various factors like road conditions, driving habits, braking etc. Emergency breaking at high speeds will reduce the life of the tire particularly in ambulance vehicles are the driving of ambulance vehicles as different from other vehicles. The allegations that the complainant could not properly operated the vehicle is an utter false hood as the complainant’s vehicle had already been covered 21061 km. till 02.01.2013 and from the said facts itself it is clear that the said vehicle being put to use by the complainant extensively. In the above said circumstances, the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect or any other defects of permanent nature as alleged by the complainant so as to warrant the replacement of the vehicle. All complaints reported by the complainant were attended properly and rectified perfectly. What all complaints reported were occurred due to the improper handling of the vehicle? Thus they have not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. All the allegations are false and the filing of this complaint is an attempt to make undue gains. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, PW2 and Ext.A1 to A14, Ext.B1, B2 and C1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that an ambulance purchase by him from the opposite parties has many complaints due to its manufacturing defect. The repairs and replacement of parts done by the opposite parties did not change the conditions of the vehicle as the said complaints are due to manufacturing defect. Since the vehicle delivered by the opposite parties is having manufacturing defects, the complainant could not use the vehicle and hence he had sustained serious severe mental agony and financial losses. Therefore the complainant requested opposite parties for the replacement of the vehicle which was not honoured by the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant and one witness filed proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination along with 14 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, they were examined as PW1 and PW2 and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A14. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s vehicle. Ext.A2 is the copy of the tax invoice, dated 21.12.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the sale of the vehicle in question. Ext.A3 is the copy of e.mail letter dated 15.05.2013 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the copy of e.mail letter dated 20.05.2013 which is the reply of Ext.A3. Ext.A5 and A5(a) are the details of repairs done to the vehicle by the opposite parties from 28.02.2013 to 02.06.2013 and 04.06.2013 to 21.10.2013 respectively. Ext.A6 is the copy of a treatment certificate dated 20.06.2013 issued from Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the complainant. Ext.A6(a) is the copy of a disability certificate dated 20.07.2011 in the name of the complainant issued from Kottarakkara Govt. Taluk, Hospital. Ext.A7 is the copy of the legal notice dated 11.01.2014 issued to the complainant and others for the financiers in connection with C.C defaults. Ext.A8 is the copy of tax invoice dated 06.02.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A9 is the copy of the letter dated nil issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A10 is the tax invoice dated 27.02.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A11 is the service checklist/job order dated 08.03.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A12 is the photocopy of the driving license of the complainant driver (PW2). Ext.A13 is the copy of receipt dated 10.10.2013 issued by the Kerala Motors Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board in the name of PW2. Ext.A14 is the tax invoice dated 11.03.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of manufacturing defect, and the allegation that the complainant’s vehicle showed complaints in the 1st week of its purchase itself are false. The 1st complaint of gear slip was reported only on 28.02.2013 at 3601 km. when the vehicle was brought for its 1st service. The said complaint was repaired without any delay. Thereafter on 08.03.2013, 17.04.2013 and 19.06.2013 also the complainant reported some complaints. On a thorough inspection, it is observed that the said complaints are not manufacturing defect and the said complaints are occurred due to the improper driving. Since the vehicle is an ambulance, the way in which the driving of an ambulance is not like that of other vehicles. Over speed, sudden break, speed gear shifting etc. will be done in ambulances which automatically occurs speedy wear and tear when compared to other vehicles. All the reported complaints are occurred due to the said reasons and the said complaints cannot be repaired under warranty conditions as the said complaints are not manufacturing defects. Even then, opposite parties repaired the entire complaints under warranty for maintaining a good relationship with the complainant. Other allegations like low pickup low mileage, high sound and break down while patients are carrying are false. The vehicle is still in perfect condition and there is no major complaint other than certain minor complaints due to the improper driving natural wear and tear. The vehicle has already been covered more than 21000 kms. within 13 months. In the circumstances, all the allegations of the complainant are baseless and this complaint cannot be allowed as there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. All reported complaints are attended and rectified without any delay to the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, an authorized officer of the 2nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents which are marked as Exts.B1 and B2 series on the basis of the proof affidavit and as per the consent of the complainant. Ext.B1 is the authorization executed by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the authorized officer who filed the proof affidavit for the opposite parties. Ext.B2 series are the relevant job cards relating to the vehicle kept by the 2nd opposite party in connection with the services of the complainant’s vehicle since from its purchase.
11. Apart from the above, the commissioner appointed by this Forum who inspected the vehicle and filed a report which is marked as Ext.C1 with the consent of both parties.
12. On a perusal of the available materials on record, it is seen that the allegation of the complainant is the manufacturing defect of the complainant’s vehicle. In order to prove the said allegations complainant brought certain tax invoices showing repairs done to his vehicle by the opposite parties. The said documents are marked as Ext.A5, A8, A9, A10 and A14. Ext.A5 and B5(a) are the photocopy of the record of repairs performed from 28.02.2013 to 21.10.2013. But it is an unattested photocopy even without the number of the vehicle and the seal or signature of the person who issued it. So it cannot be treated as an acceptable evidence and even if it is accepted, the works performed shown in it are not major repairs connected to any manufacturing defect. Ext.A8 and A9 are one and the same document and it is for the repairs done on 06.02.2014 at 26555 km. The repairs mentioned therein is regular repairs and is not connected with any manufacturing defect. Ext.A10 and A14 shows the repairs done on 27.02.2014 at 32697 km. and 11.03.2014 at 33573 km. The said repairs are also regular repairs which are not connected with any manufacturing defect. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to find any manufacturing defect solely on the basis of the said exhibits. Then comes Ext.C1 report filed by the commissioner appointed by this Forum. In Ext.C1 commission report, commissioner categorically stated that he had not noticed any manufacturing defect to the complainant’s vehicle. He further stated that he had noticed two minor defects which can be rectified by simple repairs. Though the complainant filed an objection against the commission report, the said objections seems to have no force and further he has not made any attempt to substantiate his objections against the commissioner’s report. In view of the above, and considering the age of the vehicle at the time of filing of this complaint, we find that the complainant’s vehicle has no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Hence this complaint is not allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of December, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Salin. S
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s
vehicle.
A2 : Copy of the tax invoices dated 21.12.2012 issued by the 2nd
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Copy of e.mail letter dated 15.05.2013 sent by the
complainant to the opposite parties.
A4 : Copy of e.mail letter dated 20.05.2013 is the reply of Ext.A3. A5 & A5(a) : Photocopies of repairs from 28.02.2013 to
02.06.2013 & 04.06.2013 to 21.10.2013.
A6 : Copy of a treatment certificate dated 20.06.2013 issued from
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram in the name
of the complainant.
A6(a) : Copy of disability certificate dated 20.07.2011 in the name
of the complainant issued from Kottarakkara Govt. Taluk,
Hospital.
A7 : Copy of a legal notice dated 11.01.2014 issued by the
opposite parties to the complainant and others.
A8 : Copy of tax invoice dated 06.02.2014 issued by the 2nd
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A9 : Copy of the letter dated nil issued by the 2nd opposite party in
the name of the complainant.
A10 : Tax invoice dated 27.02.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
A11 : Service checklist public job order dated 08.03.2014 issued
by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A12 : Photocopy of the driving license of the complainant.
A13 : Copy of receipt dated 10.10.2013 issued by the Kerala
Motors Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board in the name
of PW2.
A14 : Tax invoice dated 11.03.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Ajith kumar
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Authorization executed by the 2nd opposite party.
B2 series : Relevant job cards
Court Exhibits:
C1 : Commission Report
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Salin. S, Leela Bhavan, Kannimel, Meenam,
Pattazhy, Kollam, Pin – 691 522.
- General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., 20th Floor, Tower @ A, One India Bulls Centre, 841, Senapathi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013.
(3) Proprietor, Popular Mega Motors (I) Ltd.,
Kumbazha-Konni Road, Mallassery Mukku,
Thengumkavu.P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
