By Yadunadhan, President
The petition was filed on 26.05.05.The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a car manufactured by the first opposite party, marked in the name of “Indica V2 DLS” on 12.08.2004 from the second opposite party on payment of Rs.3,96,509/-(Three lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred and nine only). In addition to this the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.21,000/-(Twenty one thousand only) towards Road Tax, Registration etc. The vehicle is delivered on the same day with sufficient warranty and free service offers. The complainant accepted the vehicle with much expectation of best performance. The complainant opted to purchase the vehicle of the first opposite party under the bonafide impression that they are the veteran manufactures of Motor Vehicles including heavy medium and light vehicles, who is in the field for the last so many years. The vehicle is assigned with register No.KL 10 T 8586 as stipulated by the rules and regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act. Within a few days of delivery of the vehicle by running 4800 Kilometers it developed excessive oil consumption.. The complainant surrendered the vehicle to the second opposite party on 25.10.2004 in order to ratify the defects. The second opposite party re-entrusted the vehicle on 28.10.2004 assuring that the same is subjected to proper scrutiny and rectification of available defects. In addition to this defects are developed to the power steering and the clutch system of the vehicle. Again on the second time on 16.12.2004 vehicle is re surrendered to the second opposite party with the above said complaints. The second opposite party redelivered the vehicle on 16.12.2004 proposing to replace the engine with a new one in order to cure all complaints. As informed by the second opposite party the vehicle is entrusted with them on 28.12.2004 for replacement of the engine and they returned the vehicle on 03.01.2005 without replacing the same as the first opposite party refused to supply a new engine. On 10.02.2005 the vehicle is called for replacement of the engine by the second opposite party and the same is delivered on 14.02.05 with an assurance and acknowledgement that the engine is replaced and the vehicle is complaint free to run without any defects. Even though the vehicle is subjected for detailed scrutiny and check up on several occasions by the dealer who is acting as a limb of the first opposite party there was improper alignment, diminished battery water level etc, one of the wheels of the car found ruined because of the imbalanced alignment system. After a ride about 13200 Kilometers that is on 23.04.05 the break system of the vehicle is failed and it is by God’s grace the complainant’s son and family narrowly escaped from a major accident. The brake booster assembly is installed in the vehicle at a very safer position in order to prevent any damages for the same by rash use of the vehicle. The complainant constrained to pay a sum of Rs.5060/- towards replacement of the unit. The warranty is rejected on the ground that it is an external damage. The said damage is caused in the repairs done by the second opposite party because of their negligence bill dated 01.07.1995, bill dated 25.04.2005, bill dated 26.04.2005 are produced before this forum. Even Now the vehicle develops minor complaints. In addition to this complaint had spent a total amount of Rs.25000/- towards the rectification of the defects. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against opposite party taking them to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,509/- along with compensation and cost.
Opposite party -1 have served notice , filed their version and opposite party does not admit the statement of the complainant in Para I of the complaint. The complainant has no case there has been any deficiency in service on the side of this opposite party . The opposite party unnecessarily has been made a part to the proceedings. The complaint petition that the vehicle developed excessive oil consumption within a few days of delivery is denied as incorrect and against facts. The statement that one of the wheels got ruined due to the imbalanced wheel alignment is not admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party is also instructed to state that the complainant had taken his vehicle to M/s. Focuz Motors, Calicut, an authorized service centre, of this opposite party for attending to a complaint on the break system. As M/s.Focuz Motors was not entitled to attend to warranty claims at that point of time. It is understood that the complainant instead of taking his vehicle to the second opposite party took the dismantled brake booster assembly and sought for replacement of the same. As there was violation of the conditions of warranty. There is no merit or basis in the said claim of the complainant and it has been with ulterior motives. Therefore complaint is liable to the dismissed.
Opposite party -2 served notice, enter in appearance filed their version stating that the complainant brought the vehicle on 25.10.2004 with a complaint of high oil consumption and after checking the same this opposite party cured the defects and advised the complainant to verify the oil consumption for the next 2000 kilometers. The complainant acknowledged the fact of satisfactory work done by this opposite party . Since the vehicle shows oil consumption excessively this opposite party reported the fact to the first opposite party who is the manufacturer and accordingly the first opposite party replaced the same with the existing one. Thereafter no defect or complaint was there with respect to the oil consumption. The engine was received by this opposite party on 07.01.2005 and the complainant brought the vehicle for replacement of the engine on 10.02.05 and this opposite party delivered the vehicle on14.02.05 after replacing the engine. It is not correct to say that vehicle was entrusted with this opposite party on 28.12.04 for replacing the engine. It is also incorrect to say that the vehicle was returned back to the complainant on 03.01 .05 without replacing the engine as the Ist opposite party refused to supply new engine. This opposite party deny entire averment made by the complainant. . There was no occasion for causing defect in the brake system while attending engine repair. This opposite party as well as first opposite party strictly followed the warranty condition and whenever any short comings are these opposite parties will cure the same and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration.
Whether any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. If so what is the relief and cost.
Complainant has not adduced any oral evidence but some documents produced. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. Opposite party -1 was examined as RW1, Ext.B1 & B2 were marked. The Purchase of the vehicle is admitted by opposite party -2, on 12.08.2004 onwards the vehicle was not in a good condition even after rectification complainant was still continue. But opposite party -1 make earnest efforts to rectify the defects by replacing the engine itself that was admitted by the complainant . Moreover somany allegations are made out by the complainant. There is no supporting documents to show that the defects was happened due to mishandling of the vehicle by opposite party-2. Even now complainant has not taken any steps to note the defects by an expert, and complainant failed to tender evidence regarding the disputed vehicle, where it exactly or who is the actual owner at this time, here complainant is totally failed to prove their case. Under this circumstance no merit in this complaint , complaint is liable to be dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open court this the Ist day of July 2011.
Date of filing:26.05.2005.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Job card No.5568 dtd.06.12.2004.
A2. Job card No.5949 dtd.28.12.2004.
A3. Job card No.6143 dtd. 10.01.2005.
A4. Description of work done of Focuz Motors dtd.03.05.2006.
A5. Record of warranty repairs carried out dtd. 14.12.04 to 10.11.05.
A6 Photocopy of important information of service book record
A7. Photocopy of the list of authorized service station .
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1.Photocopy of letter dtd. 29.01.05 sent on behalf of the Ist opposite party to the
complainant.
B2. Brief history of service KL 10 T 8586 (12 in series Nos.)
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1.Shaji.V., 3rd floor, Tutus Towers, Padivattom NH Byepass, Cochin-682024.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
