IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of Octoberber, 2011
Filed on 05.04.2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.125/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Johnson C.A. 1. Tata Motors Limited
Chambakkattu House 26th Floor Centre No.1
Kuruppankulangara P.O. World Trade Centre
Cherthala, Alappuzha Dt. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai
(By Adv. K.N.Azhakesan) Represented by its General Manager
(By Adv. (Menon & Menon)
2. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd.
Skyline Gateway, Apartments
Pathadipalam, Edappally, Kochi
Represented by its Manager
(By Adv. Anil.S.Raj)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Johnson has filed this complaint before the Forum on 5.9.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased a TATA INDICA DLS Motor Car bearing Engine No.4751 D1 03KZYP-89979 Chasis No. MAT/600149/ATK 07670, from the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,63,337/- which was delivered to him on 16.01.2011. The said vehicle have the finance and hypothecation to M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra finance Ltd. The Registration No. of the vehicle was KL-32/C 1783. He had purchased the said vehicle for plying as taxi for earnings his livelihood. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, 2nd opposite party, who is the authorized agent of the first opposite party assured him, that the vehicle is free from any sort of trouble and further assured replacement guarantee if any occurs within the warranty period. The vehicle was having replacement warranty up to 20500 KM or for 24 months whichever is earlier. He used the vehicle strictly in accordance with the guidelines and instructions given by the manufacture and the 2nd opposite party. The said vehicle was given for first service on 9.2.2011, to the 2nd opposite party and meter reading of the said vehicle was 1137 KM only. But the 2nd opposite party had not returned the vehicle within the agreed date after first service. When contacted the 2nd opposite party, they informed him that the vehicle have some manufacturing defect and so the engine is showing some defects and the defect was not checked by the 2nd opposite party at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. So he demanded for replacement of the defective vehicle. But the 2nd opposite party had not turned up. The vehicle was having critical engine trouble within the short period and the vehicle is now in the service centre of the 2nd opposite party. He has to remit the monthly installment of loan payable to M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd. even though the vehicle was in the workshop of the 2nd opposite party. He had sent legal notice to the opposite parties. First opposite party had issued reply to him seeking more time for considering the matter. 2nd opposite party had given reply admitting the incident, but denying replacement by raising certain false contentions. Hence this complaint seeking proper relief.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed detailed version. In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that they are the manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicle and also the distributor of passengers’ cars manufactured by Fiat Automobile India (P) Ltd. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and that the complainant is not a consumer. The car purchased by the complainant is of the highest quality and he had taken delivery after being satisfied with the condition of the car, and they have conducted Pre-Delivery inspection (PDI) of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party had attended the alleged problem reported by the complainant as on date, there exist no problem in the car and that the complainant seeking replacement with a new car and compensation is contrary to law and is untenable. He had purchased the car for the purpose of taxi by employing third party drivers. It is further stated that as per the warranty norms the replacement warranty exists up to 50,000 kms. or 18 months whichever is earlier. It is further stated that, during the period of service of the vehicle, the technical staff of the 2nd opposite party had noticed some sort of abnormal noise inside the engine. This problem was immediately referred to them by the first opposite party, as a result of which original engine was replaced with the new engine, as per the warranty norms laid down by them. So, there is no deficiency in service on the side of them.
3. In the version filed by the 2nd opposite party, it is stated that they were promptly attended the complainant’s request and redressed his grievance. As per the warranty norms, the replacement warranty exist up to 50,000 km. or 18 months whichever is earlier. It is stated that the vehicle was managed by drivers appointed by the complainant time to time. At the time of entrusting the said car with them for first service by him and at that instance, it had covered 1885 km. and at that time the complainant had no complaints. It is stated that during the service of the said vehicle, the technical staff noticed some sort of abnormal noise inside the engine, and that immediately they referred the matter to the first opposite party as a result of which a new engine was received from the first opposite party’s ware house and original engine was replaced with a new one as per warranty norms laid down by the first opposite party. It is stated that they had informed the complainant about their liability to replacement of the said vehicle with a new one. The vehicle is kept ready after replacement of the engine. But the complainant has not turned up. It is stated that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency or negligence on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and costs?
5. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence. Exts.A1 to A9 marked – Ext.A1 is the vehicle delivery acknowledgement note issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. It shows the details of the vehicle, including the hypothecation charge to M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra, the financier to the said vehicle. Ext.A2 is the statement issued by the above said financier to the complainant showing the loan amount sanctioned and the details of remittance. Total loan amount availed by the complainant comes to Rs.2,87,000/-. Ext.A3 is the reply notice issued to the complainant’s Advocate to the opposite parties in connection with the dispute regarding the said vehicle. Ext.A4 is the notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate regarding the dispute. Ext.A5 is the notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant’s Advocate regarding the details of the above matter and request to settle the matter. Ext.A6 is the insurance cover note of M/s. Reliance General Insurance issued to the complainant in connection with the insurance of the said vehicle. Ext.A7 is the certificate of registration of the said vehicle. Ext.A8 is the contract carriage permit of the vehicle. Ext.A9 is the copy of the Driving Licence of the complainant.
6. Complainant filed counter affidavit against the opposite parties’ proof affidavit. 1st opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief exam. Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd opposite party.
7. We have heard the matter in detail and verified the documents filed by the complainant in evidence and perused the affidavit of the opposite parties, for a fair adjudication of the matter. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the said car for a sum of Rs.3,63,337/- from the 2nd opposite party and delivered the vehicle on 16.1.2011. The said vehicle have the finance from M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd., for a sum of Rs.2,87,000/-. It is further alleged that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized agent of the opposite parties had given assurance to the complainant that the vehicle is free from any sort of trouble or defects, and perfect service at any time and also assured replacement guarantee in case is any defects occurred within warranty period. While so the complainant entrusted the said vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for first service on 9.2.2011. The total KM runned by the vehicle was 1137 only. But the 2nd opposite party had not returned the vehicle after the first service. When contacted the 2nd opposite party by the complainant it was learnt that the engine of the vehicle have some defects. So, 2nd opposite party had not returned the vehicle. Again the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 14/02/2011. At that time, he found that the engine of the said vehicle was kept opened in a damaged condition at the service centre of the 2nd opposite party, and further learnt from the technician that the engine is showing certain technical defects. 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that they have taken up the matter to the first opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that nothing has been done in this regard. On a detailed study of the matter, and verification of the statement put forward by the opposite parties, it can be seen that the opposite parties have not taken any sincere efforts to settle the matter in a fair way. In the version of the first opposite party, it was stated that at the time of service, they had noticed some sort of abnormal noise inside the engine. So they have removed the defective engine and replaced a new engine in the vehicle. 2nd opposite party has also stated the above matter. The defects of the engine started within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant, by the opposite parties. In this matter, the opposite parties are raising unnecessary contentions regarding the issue and evaded from the assurance given by them to the complainant. After considering the entire matter of this case, we are of the strong view that the vehicle has the manufacturing defects. The defects occurred within the warranty period. The opposite parties are jointly bound to answerable for this. It is to be noticed that even though the vehicle is now in the possession of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is still repaying the installments of loan to M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd., taken at the time of purchasing the said vehicle. The opposite parties are fully entitled to solve the problem sought by the complainant in time. The entire matter shows that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the opposite parties by way of refusal to pay the amount of the vehicle to the complainant as requested. It shows the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. The contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version cannot be accepted since it has any merit and has no locus standi. The opposite parties have drag on the complainant before this Forum unnecessarily. So after a detailed study of this case, we are of the strong view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine. Hence complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay back the total price of the said vehicle bearing No.KL 32/C 1783 ie. Rs.3,63,337/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty three thousand three hundred and thirty seven only) to the complainant. Since there is deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties, by way of purposeful denial of either to replace the vehicle with a new one, or repay its price since the delivered vehicle has manufacturing defects, and delay the matter unnecessarily. We hereby further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, harassment and monetary loss due to the above reasons of the opposite parties, and further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as costs of this proceedings and that the opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Vehicle delivery acknowledgement note issued by the 2nd opposite
Party.
Ext.A2 - Statement issued by M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.
Ext.A3 - Reply notice issued to the complainant’s Advocate to the opposite
Parties
Ext.A4 - Notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate
Dated 10.3.2011
Ext.A5 - Legal Notice dated 24.2.2011
Ext.A6 - Insurance cover note of M/s. Reliance General Insurance
Ext.A7 - Certificate of registration of the vehicle
Ext.A8 - Contract Carriage Permit of the vehicle
Ext.A9 - Copy of the driving licence of the complainant
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
