D.O.F. - 26-04-2011
D.O.O – 20-03-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.Roy Paul : President
Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this, the 20th day of March, 2015
CC.143/2011
Umesh.P.V.,
S/o. Narayana Poduval,
Parangatt Vettil,
“Narayaneeyam”, : Complainant
Kandoth (PO),
Payyanur (Via),
KannurDistrict.
(Rep. by Adv. K.V. Manoj Kumar)
- M/s. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd,
Passenger Car Business Unit,
5th Floor,
One Forbes, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg Fort,
Mumbai – 4000001.
(Rep. by Adv. P.Fazil)
- The General Manager,
M/s. K.V.R. Dreams Vehicles Pvt Ltd, : Opposite parties
Chirakkuthazhe, Kizhunna (PO),
Thottada, Kannur (Dt.)
- The Manager,
M/s. K.V.R. Dreams Vehicles,
Kandoth (PO),
Payyanur (Via), Kannur (Dt.)
( Both O.P. 2 & 3 Rep.by Adv.T.P. Sabu)
O R D E R
Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K, Member
This complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or to refund the purchase price of the vehicle alongwith compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant has purchased a car with brand name Tata Indica Vista Aura ABS manufactured by 1st opposite party and marketed by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties on 01-04-2010, being attracted by the advertisement and offers made by opposite parties by availing loan from a finance company. From the 7th day of the delivery of the vehicle, the vehicle shown defects for its brake, clutches and steering. On 08-04-2010 itself the complainant along with father contacted the 2nd opposite party and as they assured that there will not have any defects in future, the complainant taken back the vehicle to his home. Even after that the vehicle continued its defects especially of brake and gear. Then on 21-04-2010 complainant again taken the vehicle to 2nd opposite party opposite party for immediate service. But opposite party kept the vehicle in his custody for eight days and returned on 29-04-2010 misrepresenting that the defects were cured. But the defects and fault of the vehicle continued and this time the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties were not ready to redress the grievance. They asked the complainant to raise the issue with 1st opposite party and complainant sent an e-mail, raising the complaints of the vehicle. Only a month after that the 1st opposite party responded to e-mail and that too asking to contact over the phone. Although the complainant tried to contact over the phone 1st opposite party has not responded. As the warranty offered cover the mechanical and electrical matters of the vehicle, the complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party but received an indifferent and disgusting response. According to the complainant the opposite parties supplied a defective and faulty vehicle with knowledge thereby cheated and caused huge losses and sufferings to the complainant, both pecuniary and mental and this opposite party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
After receiving compliant Forum sent notice to opposite parties. All the opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of opposite party No. 1 the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual and service book given at the time of sale. The complainant has taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the car and its performance. All the cars manufactured by the opposite parties are put through stringent control system, quality checks and test drives before being cleared for despatch to the market. Moreover the car in dispute had covered around 8,927 kms. till 24-03-11 and that the car is absolute roadworthy condition and that the jobs carried out on the car in question are minor and running repairs and the opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievance reported by the complainant and therefore the prayer for replacement of the car or refund of the price of the car are untenable and unsustainable. Moreover the car of the complainant reported on or around 30-03-2010 at 35 kms. to the opposite party dealer for accidental repairs. The opposite party has raised issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties also as the complainant has brought the car in question to the workshop of Auto Matrix at Mangalore and he has not impleaded the said workshop in this case. As the opposite parties has duly resolved the compliant as and when received, to the satisfaction of the complainant under warranty and there exists no outstanding issue with the car. Hence no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
According to the version of opposite party No.2&3 the performance and quality of the vehicle will be attained only if the vehicle is used in the proper manner as recommended by the manufacturer and the complainant had done some modification and repairs in an unauthorized workshop and that may be basis for the allegation of spending huge amount for the maintenance and the complainant is trying to extract unlawful money from the opposite parties and there is no defect to the vehicle and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any remedy?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A12. And Ext. C1 & C2. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence.
Issues No. 1 :
The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has supplied a vehicle which have manufacturing defects. Now it has brought out in evidence that the vehicle met with accident on 10-04-2010. When the complainant was re-examined he had stated that “10-04-2010 ന് accident ഉണ്ടാവാന് കാരണം break കിട്ടാതിരുന്നതു കൊണ്ടാണ്. ഓടിച്ച് കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുമ്പോള് നിറയെ വാഹനം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. Slow movement ലായിരുന്നു വണ്ടി ഓടിച്ചത്. ½ clutch ലായിരുന്നു. Break apply ചെയ്യതപ്പോള് sufficient break കിട്ടിയില്ല ”. Now no document is before this Forum about the same. If the facts were different opposite parties must have produced evidence to rebut the same. But nothing is seen produced. Although opposite parties have taken a contention of nonjoinder of necessary parties it can be seen that the alleged service centre is the authorised service centre of opposite parties. So no harm will be caused not making them a party. Regarding the defects of the vehicle the best evidence can be given by an expert and that has been done by the complainant by taking out expert commission. As per the Ext.C1 and C2 the vehicle is having incurable defects. Ext. C2 is the additional report and as per Ext. C2 the defects in Ext. C1 were seen aggravated further and the brake system cannot be repaired. Here opposite parties have not produced any oral or documentary evidence to support their case. The complainant has brought out the best evidence to support his case. All the evidence shows that the vehicle was a defective one. As per the Ext. C1, “As a result of all the above an accident may occur at any time to this vehicle”. So the supplying of a defective vehicle is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.
Issues No. 2 & 3:
When there is deficiency in service the complainant is entitled to get remedy. As the replacement of a particular system of the car will not be effective in practical sense it is necessary to replace the entire vehicle. Although this a fit case for awarding compensation considering the fact that already the vehicle has been plied 8,927kms, we are not awarding compensation. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,000 towards litigation cost. Hence order passed accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to replace the car of the complainant and to pay Rs.3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this, the 20th day of March, 2015
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1- Maintenance manual, relevant page.
A2- Job sheet dated 24-03-2011.
A3 - Copy of lawyer notice dated 07-07-2010.
A4 - Page 74 of Owner’s Manual.
A5 - Reply letter by O.P.2 and O.P.3.
A6- Reply letter by O.P.1
A7- Job Slip dated 24-03-2011.
A8- Tax invoice dated 24-03-2011.
A9- Job slip dated 20-09-2010.
A10- Tax invoice dated 20-09-2010.
A11- Job sheet dated 20-09-2010.
A12- Owner’s Manual & Service book, Page 74 of Manual.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Exhibits for the Court:
C1- Commission report dated 27-10-2011.
C2- Commission report dated 11-07-2012
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1 - Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
//Forwarded By Order//
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
