CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 45/2011
Monday, the 21st day of April, 2014
Petitioner : The Mahatma Gandhi University,
Priyadarshini Hills P.O.
Kottayam District.
Rep. by the Registrar.
(Adv. V.K. Sathyavan Nair)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) M/s. Tata Motors,
Marketing and Consumer Support,
Passenger Car Business Unit, 8th Floor Centre No.1,
World Trade Centre, Cuffe Park.
Mumbai.
2) The Manager,
M/s. St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd.
Vadavathoor P.O.,
Kottayam.
(Adv. P. Fazil & Adv. Babu P. Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 22/02/2011 is as follows.
The complainant, Mahatma Gandhi University on 01/10/2009 purchased an India car bearing Reg. No. KL.AA-2623 from the second opposite party, manufactured by first opposite party. According to the complainant, at the time of purchase, the 1st opposite party offered 18 months guarantee for the vehicle from all manufacturing defects from the date of purchase. According to the complainant, after 5 months of purchase, the clutches of the vehicle were not properly functioning and the complainant was intimated it to 2nd opposite party. The mechanic of 2nd opposite party examined the vehicle and stated that it was not by manufacturing defects and refused to repair the vehicle on free of cost. So the complainant sent a complaint through e-mail to the 1st opposite party on 30/03/2010 and requested to cure the defect of the vehicle on free of cost. But 1st opposite party was not turned to respond the said complaint. According to petitioner, the vehicle has to be repaired urgently to meet the daily needs. So the complainant was compelled to remit an amount of Rs.7,970/- as demanded by 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant the opposite parties are legally bound to repair the vehicle on free of cost during the guarantee period and the opposite parties are violated the guarantee. The cost charged by the 2nd opposite party is against the terms and conditions of guarantee and the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
First opposite party filed version contenting that the complainant filed this complaint by suppressing the material facts. According to 1st opposite party, the complainant made baseless allegations of manufacturing defect without relying on an expert report under Section 13 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to 1st opposite party, complainant is not a consumer and also the complaint is not a consumer dispute. The complainant purchased the said car for business purpose and used for commercial activities in order to generate profit and was covered more than 37,843/- kilometers within a period of 18 months.
According to 1st opposite party the complainant failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owners’ manual as recommended for smooth and maximum performance of the car. According to 1st opposite party as per the service schedule, the complainant was failed to bring the car at the recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book for carrying out the mandatory free service. According to 1st opposite party, the driver of the car had a habit of operating the car in clutch overriding which resulted into the damage of the clutch. The 1st opposite party contented that the complainant used the car without proper maintenance and service, so violated the terms of the warranty and thus cannot be bestowed any warranty benefits. According to 1st opposite party, as per the warranty policy, all the wear and tear due to improper usage of the car are to be carried out on paid basis, hence the complainant was not entitled to get any warranty for carrying out the job works of clutch. And the defect of the car was rectified satisfactorily as per warranty policy and the complainant has issued satisfaction note. According to 1st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they pray for dismissal of complaint with their cost.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to second opposite party, the vehicle was purchased by complainant M.G. University directly from 1st opposite party. And 1st opposite party assured warranty for the vehicle only for manufacturing defects for a period of 18 months from the date of sale or 50,000 kilometer whichever comes earlier. According to 2nd opposite party, the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repairing clutch complaints on 06/03/2010 and find out that clutch disc and related components worn out and the wear pattern clearly shows the improper usage of the clutch. And complainant took back the vehicle after remitting Rs.7,970/- as the repair charges. According to 2nd opposite party, the defect is due to wear and tear due to the improper operation and hence not cover under manufacturer warranty and it is clearly stated in owners manual and service book. According to second opposite party, the owner of the vehicle is M.G. University and the said vehicle is used for commercial activities and complainant is not entitled any relief from this Forum and they pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Points for determinations are:
- Complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavitsof thecomplainantand 1st
1stopposite party and Ext. A1 to A6 documents. The opposite parties were continuously absent and no representation.
Point No.1
According to the opposite parties, since the petitioner, Mahatma Gandhi university purchased the car for commercial purpose, the petitioner is not a consumer and thus the petition is not maintainable. In our view the purchase of the vehicle is not having any nexuses with the activity conducted by the university, so petitioner is a consumer and the petition is maintainable. Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party demanded Rs.7,970/- as repairing charges, for repairing the vehicle during the guarantee period. 2nd opposite party admitted remittance of Rs.7,970/- as repair charges. According to 2nd opposite party, the compliance of the vehicle were due to the wear and gear due to improper operation. Hence, the repair will not cover under manufacturer warranty. Eventhough, opposite parties have a definite case of improper handling of the vehicle nothing was placed by the opposite parties to prove the same. So in our view, act of opposite parties mounts to deficiency in service. Point No.2 is find accordingly.
Point No.3
In our view of findings in Point No,1 and 2, petition is allowed.
In the result,
- Opposite parties are ordered to refund of Rs.7,970/- to the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization.
- Since, interest is allowed, no separate compensation is allowed.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.1,500/- as cost.
- Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount.
Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of copy of
the order.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner:
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of Lr. No. Ad B V/1/2623/10 dtd.17/04/2010 from M.G. University
Ext.A2 : Photocopy of acknowledgement card addressed to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of cheque no.025413 dtd.31/03/2010 for Rs.7970/-
Ext.A4 : Photocopy of car identification card, registration no. KL-05-AA-2623
Ext.A5 : Photocopy of registration certificate, KL-05-AA-2623
Ext.A6 : Photocopy of warranty card
By Order
Senior Superintendent
