IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 10^th day of December 2019

Filed on: 16.11.2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member.

CC.No.759/2015

Between

O R D E R

Cherian K.Kuriakose, President

1) Complainant’s case

The complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo Sedan car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold through the 2^nd opposite party. The vehicle was registered as KL- 40/F- 4271. Originally, the vehicle had a warranty for 2 years from the date of purchase against all kinds of repairs. At the time of purchase the vehicle itself, the 2^nd opposite party had given an extended warranty for all kinds of repair of the vehicle for the third year as well, on collection of an additional premium from the complainant. On 04.03.2014, the 2^nd opposite party suggested the complainant to take an extended warranty for the vehicle for 4^th and 5^th years. Believing the representation of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had taken an extended warranty for the vehicle on 04.03.2014 on payment of Rs. 12,350/- which was valid for a period of two years. Later, when the vehicle was brought to the 2^nd opposite party for repairs on 08.07.2015, the opposite party raised a bill Rs. 18,908/- for the repair and maintenance. Though the complainant disputed the bill on the ground that it was covered by the warranty, asked for the bill and accordingly issued the bill. This complaint is filed by the complainant to reimburse the payment illegally collected from the complainant and award compensation for fraudulent act committed by the 2^nd opposite party.

2) Both opposite parties appeared, but only the 2^nd opposite party had filed the version resisting the allegations in the complaint.

3) According to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had not taken any extended warranty as alleged in the complaint. The contract between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant was only for an Annual Maintenance Contract and not an extended warranty. The 2^nd opposite party has provided annual maintenance fee on 04.03.2014, 08.07.2015 and on 11.11.2014 but had charged only the value of the spare parts used. Therefore there is no violation of contract between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant and the complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.

4) On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration

1. Whether the complainant had proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint?

2. Reliefs and costs.

5) The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbt. A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant and Exbt.B1 to B9 on the side of the opposite party.

6) Issue No. (i)

It was contended on behalf of the opposite party that the complainant has not proved his allegation that he had taken any additional extended warranty from the manufacturer, through the dealer. Though the complainant had produced Exb.A1 to A9 documents, none of the documents proved that the complainant had availed any extended warranty as averred in the complaint. The documents produced by the complainant would only go to show that the complainant had paid only 12,350/- towards the Annual Maintenance Contract on 04.03.2014 as per Exbt.A3. The Annual Maintenance Contract is different from the extended warranty. The warranty of a product is to be provided only by the manufacturer who manufactured the product. The 1^st opposite party is not seen to have entered into any contact with the complainant in respect of any agreement for warranty. We do not feel it appropriate to discuss in details of the entire documents produced by the complainant, in view of the fact that the fundamental document required to prove has not been produced and proved by the complainant. In the absence of any material to show that the complainant had paid any consideration for availing any extended warranty. We find that the case of the complainant cannot survive. We find the issue therefore against the complainant.

7) Issue No. (ii)

Having found that the complainant had failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against the opposite party. We find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2019.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits ::

Deposition :

PW1 : Dr.Lakshmidhara Menon

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::

…………………………