DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
CC.No.122/2008
Issac Varghese, S/o.Varghese, Thanikkal House, Kottampara Gramam, Kanjikode (West), Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.C.S.Mohandas)
Vs
1. Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, 5th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Rep by its Officer in charge. (By M/s.Menon & Menon)
2. R.F.Motors(P) Ltd., Skey Line Gateway Apartments, Pathadippalam, Edappally, Kochi. Rep by its Managing Director. (By Adv.T.R.Anil.S.Raj, T.R.Anil Venugopal & K.Gopakumar)
3. R.F.Motors, Apex Residency, V.H.Road, Palakkad. Rep by its Managing Director. - Opposite parties (By Adv.T.R.Anil.S.Raj, T.R.Anil Venugopal & K.Gopakumar)
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant has purchased a Tata Indigo CSLS car on 30/07/2008 from the 3rd opposite party as per Invoice No.RFMOP-0809-01215. The engine number of car was 4751DT14FRZ P 74137 and chasis No.607146 FRZP81148. Before the purchase the purchase of the car representative of the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and made believed that new car will be given if it is booked through the 3rd opposite party. On believing the words of representative of 2nd opposite party the complainant has booked a brand new car on 30/07/2008. The complainant took a DD No.597887 dtd.06/08/08 for an amount of Rs.4,42,254/- drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank. At the time of payment the representatives of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties made believed that they will hand over a brand new car which will be having good condition. The complainant went to the 3rd opposite party office with his friends and took delivery of the car from Palakkad office of the 3rd opposite party on 07/08/2008. The complainant inspected the car generally and at first sight there is no damages or demerits in any form at the car. After few days while using the car by the complainant noticed leakage through the back glass of the car, when it rains. Immediately the complainant approached 3rd opposite party and they referred the matter to their service center Auto Zone, Mettupalayam Street, Coimbatore and on thorough checking, he noticed that the glass portion of the back left side top of the dickey is in damaged condition and of the back glass is in damaged condition for the length of 2 ft and found rust on it. Again water leaking through left side door glass beadings also noticed. Moreover patch work was seen done and rust also found on the left side back door beading. Thus it is found that the back side of the car has serious manufacturing defect. The complainant has talked over the manufacturing defect of the car to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and they explained unreasonable excuses. The complainant sent lawyer notices and photographs of the damaged portions of the car to all opposite parties on 30/08/2008. The 2nd opposite party sent reply notice stating unreasonable explanation by denying the responsibility towards the defect of the car. The 1st opposite party sent a reply notice stating that they
are considering the claim. Thereafter the 1st opposite party sent another letter demanding to take the damaged car for inspection at 2nd opposite party office. But the complainant could not take the car to the 2nd office because the vehicle already have been inspected by the authorised service centre of the opposite parties and the vehicle has been kept in the limit of the Kasaba Police Station as part of investigation of crime registered against all opposite parties. The act of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and this caused the complainant many damages and mental pain. Hence the complainant claims to replace the damaged car with a new car in good condition and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss, damages and mental pain caused to him and the incidental expenses suffered from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. All opposite parties stated that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 1st opposite party stated that the complainant is engaged in rent-a-car business renting many vehicle and the vehicle purchased from the opposite parties was also for the said purpose. Admittedly the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties after personally inspecting and being satisfied with the vehicle. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that the complainant has not purchased the car from 3rd opposite party but it was purchased from the 2nd opposite party at Ernakulam and 3rd opposite party is only a booking centre. The representative of the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and made him believe that a new car will be given if it is booked through the 3rd opposite party is not true. The complainant himself approached the opposite parties for purchasing the car. The opposite parties are deals only in new cars which are thoroughly checked before delivery to the customer. Admittedly at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle the complainant was assisted by his friends and after the test drive and enough satisfaction the complainant taken the vehicle. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that after using the car for a few
days the complainant noticed leakage through the back glass during the rain and that he informed the 3rd opposite party about the same and it was referred to their service centre Auto Zone, Mettupalayam Street, Coimbatore is not true and hence denied. The 3rd opposite party never referred the complainant to the Auto Zone and it is not their authorised service centre. The opposite parties submitted that the leakage have been happened only due to the rough use by the complainant or his customers. The opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainant that the water was found leaking through the left side door glass beading and the patch work and rust on the left side back door beading. Beading is made by rubber and cannot rust. The car has no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that the complainant either not talked to any opposite parties or produced the vehicle before the opposite parties at any stage and not at all made complaints before the concerned authorities. The opposite parties stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of them. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of opposite parties.
Both parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties. Complainant was cross examined. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered: Whether the complainant is a consumer or not? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issue 1: Section 2(d) explanation of the Consumer Protection Act: commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him
exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Plain reading the same makes it abundantly clear that the complainant herein would fall in the category of a consumer as he had bought the car for a consideration which was paid by him. The purchase of the car by the complainant would also be covered under explanation to Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had mentioned categorically that he had bought the car to be used exclusively by him. Further more there is nothing on record to show that he wanted to use the car for any commercial purpose. So the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Thus the 1st issue answered in favour of complainant.
Issues 2 & 3: We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly the complainant has purchased a Indigo CSLS car from the opposite parties worth Rs.4,42,254/- as per Ext.A1 and A2. The complainant stated that after few days from delivery of the car noticed leakage through the back glass of the car when it rains. Further the complainant submitted that as per the direction of the 3rd opposite party, he had taken the vehicle to Auto Zone, Coimbatore which is the service centre of opposite parties. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainant to show the 3rd opposite party has referred the vehicle to the service centre. According to Ext.A7 the 2nd opposite party stated that to report their Ernakulam workshop for necessary inspection and rectification, if required. Also complainant stated that the 1st opposite party sent a letter demanding to take the damaged car for inspection at 2nd opposite party office but he could not take the car to the 2nd opposite party office. The complainant stated that the back side of the car has serious manufacturing defect. But the complainant has not taken steps for appointing an expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle for manufacturing defect. According to Ext.A8 the vehicle inspection report was filed by insurance surveyor before filing the complaint. As per
Ext.A8 some findings was mentioned by the surveyor and not stated the manufacturing defects. The complainant has not produced the surveyor before the forum for examination and clear the findings. As per the report of the surveyor, Ext.A8, we cannot find any manufacturing defect of the car. At the time of cross examination of complainant by opposite parties 2nd and 3rd the complainant stated that he had sold the car. The 1st prayer in the complaint was that to replace the damaged car with a new one in good condition. But the complainant has sold the car while pending the complaint before the Forum. The complainant has not obtained prior permission from the Forum for selling the vehicle. Also the complainant has not produced any evidence to show the manufacturing defects of the car.
In view of the above discussions we hold the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove the case. Hence the complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of September, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Memberr Date of filing: 14/11/2008
Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant PW1 – Issac Varghese
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photocopy of order booking form Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Invoice
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of car identification and record Ext.A4 – Photocopy of lawyer notice dt.29/08/08 sent by complainant to opposite parties Ext.A5(Series) – Photocopy of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards Ext.A6 - Photocopy of reply sent by 1st opposite party to complainant Ext.A7 – Photocopy of reply sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Vehicle inspection report Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Nil
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | | 
