IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2016
Filed on 17.10.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
in
CC/No.307/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Thomas Chandy 1. Tata Motors Ltd.
Pathiamoola Car Business Unit KD 03 Car
Pallippuram P.O. Plant Section 15 & 15, PCNTDA
Cherthala Chikhali, Pune – 410 501
Alappuzha (Represented by its Manager)
(By Adv. Vinoy Varghese)
2. Concorde Motors (I) Ltd.
Door No. X256/C, Nettoor
Maradu Panchayath Ernakulam - 682 304 Represented by its Manager
3. Focuz Automobile Services Ltd.
Madaparambil Estate
Thookkukulam Junction
Sanathanapuram P.O., Alappuzha
(By Adv. Krishna Menon – for
opposite parties 1 to 3)
4. KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
Kannur (Represented by its
Manager)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Grande 09 from the 2nd opposite party on 31.5.2010. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, the 2nd opposite party said that the vehicle has a manufacturing warranty of 50000 km. or one year from the date of delivery whichever is earlier and the 2nd opposite party said to the complainant that the company had an offer for extended warranty for 4 years from the date of delivery or 150000 km. whichever is earlier, for that an additional amount of Rs.7500/- have to be pay. The complainant took the extended warranty by remitting an amount of Rs.7500/- on 11.6.2010, for this the opposite party issued a policy receipt No.48-115371 dated 11.6.2010. In that policy receipt it is clearly mentioned that the policy will expire on the 4th year from the date of delivery or 150000 km. whichever is earlier. Complainant used the vehicle as per the direction given in the owner’s manual. On 23.8.2013 complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party for its 90000 km. service. The 3rd opposite party done the service and for these an amount of Rs.14,832/- was charged as service charge. On 30.8.2013 complainant along with his family went to Koorg, on the way the vehicle was break down at Kannur. Complainant availed the service of the KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. They said that the engine, Turbo charger, alternator etc. were damaged and the estimated amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is needed. After the service at 3rd opposite party, the vehicle ran about 500 km. and the vehicle shut off due to the leakage of engine oil. The 3rd opposite party failed to tighten its engine oil drain nut and as a result nut was loosen while running and the engine oil leaked through the engine oil drain nut and the engine shut down. The complaint is caused only because of the deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The allegations that the extended warranty for the vehicle purchased by the complainant was for 4 years after the expiry of the original warranty is against the facts. The extended warranty provided for the vehicle purchased by the complainant was for a period of 2 years from the date of expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty. Since the extended warranty provided for the vehicle expired in May, 2013, the complainant had been charged for the 90000 km. periodic service. The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after the periodic service after being convinced of the works done and expressing satisfaction of the same. If there was any fault in the service carried out at the workshop of the 3rd opposite party it would not have been possible to drive the vehicle for over 500 kms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The statement of complainant in para 1 of the complaint petition that the extended warranty for the vehicle purchased by him was for 4 years after the expiry of the original warranty is denied as incorrect and against facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. It is submitted that the extended warranty provided for the vehicle purchased by the complainant as provided by Global Administration Services was for a period of 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty. In view of the same the further statement in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition are denied as misconceived and without merit. The statement of the complainant that he had been using the vehicle as per the directions given in the owner’s manual and had been carrying out the periodic services through the authorized service centers are not admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party is not in the knowhow with respect to the 90000 km. service alleged to have been carried out at the third opposite party and hence do not admit of the same. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
4. The version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant is not a consumer U/s 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The extended warranty for the vehicle purchased by the complainant was for a period of 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty as provided M/s. Global Administration Services. After the 90000 km. period service, the vehicle of the complainant had covered over 500 km. before the vehicle developed alleged complaint. If there was any fault in the service/repairs carried out at the workshop of 3rd opposite party, it would not have been possible to drive the vehicle over 500 km. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
5. Since, the complainant filed a petition to delete the 4th opposite party from the party array. It was allowed, and 4th opposite party is deleted.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. One witness was examined as PW2. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. First opposite party was examined as RW1. No documentary evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Grande 09 from the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant he took extended warranty by remitting an amount of Rs.7500/- on 11.6.2010 and for this opposite party issued a policy receipt No.48-115371 dated 11.6.2010. Ext.A1 is the said receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party. In Ext.A1 it is stated that, “This policy will expire on completion of 4 years/150000 km. from the date of purchase whichever is earlier.” The complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party for its service 90000 km. on 23.8.2013 and 3rd opposite party charged an amount of Rs.14,832/- as service charge. Ext.A2 evidenced the same. According to the complainant on 30.8.2013 he along with his family went to Koorg, and on the way the vehicle was break down at Kannur and he availed the service of KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Kannur for the break down service. In order to bring the vehicle to their service centre, he availed the service of Sree Muthappan Recovery Service and for that he spent an amount of Rs.2,300/-. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by the Sree Muthappan Recovery. While entrusting the vehicle with the K.V.R. Dream vehicles they said that the engine turbo charger, alternator etc. of the vehicle were damaged and they have to replace it with a new one for that complainant incurred an amount of Rs.1,97,770/-. Even though the vehicle had an extended warranty, they stated that they cannot repair the vehicle in the extended warranty, since the records shows the extended warranty is for 3 years. According to the complainant after the service done by the 3rd opposite party they forgot to tighten the drainage engine oil nut and as a result the engine oil is leaked through the engine oil drainage nut and the engine shut off and that caused his financial loss. But the opposite parties filed version stating that if there was any fault in the service carried out at the workshop of the 3rd opposite party it would not have been possible to drive the vehicle for over 500 km. In order to substantiate the allegations of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed and the expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 report he stated that, “There is no chance for engine stuck within 500 km. after a serve of 90000 km.” At the same time he stated that the work done by the KVR Dream Vehicles Servicing Centre was for the engine stuck of the vehicle. Then the question remains is how the engine stuck happened after the 90000 km. service. According to the complainant it happened due to the carelessness of the 3rd opposite party in tightening the drainage engine oil nut and the vehicle shut off due to the leakage of the engine oil. The head of the KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW2. He stated before the Forum that, they are the authorized dealer and service centre of the Tate Motors. It is pertinent to see that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the Tata Motors. He deposed before the Forum that the vehicle has no oil drain nut and also there was no oil. He further stated that, “proper Bbn«v nut fix sNbvXn-Ã-sb-¦n vibration aqew AXqcn hogm³ km²y-X-bp-v.” The contention of the opposite party is that if the engine oil drain nut had failed to be tightened as alleged by the complainant and thereby causing engine oil leak, the vehicle of the complainant could not have covered over 500 km. It is an admitted fact that complainant had done the 90000 km. service at the 3rd opposite party servicing centre. At that time complainant paid Rs.14,832/- towards the servicing charge also. From Ext.A1 it is clear that the vehicle has warranty during the period of 4 years from the date of purchase. The vehicle was purchased on 31.5.2010. The damage occurred on 30.8.2013. So it is clear that the alleged damage occurred during the warranty period. In a decision reported in 2013 (2) CPJ page No.534 Hon’ble National Commission laid down that if the vehicle is presented before the dealer within the warranty period, it is his duty to attend the complaints if any and rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. In the instant case it is proved that the damage occurred due to the leaking of the engine oil. It was happened after the 90000 km. service done by the 3rd opposite party. From the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of opinion that the damage of the engine caused due to the defect and deficiency in service done by the 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant he had paid Rs.1,97,770/- for repairing the engine to the KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Ext.A5 evidenced the same. He had no case that the damage occurred to the engine is still existing. Hence the relief sought to replace the defected engine with a new one is not allowable. Since the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,97,770/- for repairing the defected engine during the warranty period, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,97,770/- (Rupees one lakh ninety seven thousand seven hundred and seventy only) to the complainant with 8% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. No order as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thomas Chandy (Witness)
PW2 - Rajesh P.P. (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Copy of the proposal form/policy Schedule
Ext.A2 - Tax Invoice of Focuz Invoice Services Ltd.
Ext.A3 - Bill dated 30.8.2013
Ext.A4 - Break down job slip
Ext.A5 - Tax invoice of KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.C1 - Expert commission report
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Jibin K. Sasidharan (Wintess)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: pr/-
Compared by:-
