Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

143/2014

S.Kalaiselvi,W/o.M.Shanmugam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chevrolet Sales India(P) Ltd,The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  26.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.143/2014

 

 

S.Kalaiselvi,

W/o M.Shanmugam,

4/713- Mugappair West,

Chennai – 600 037.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Chairman,

The Chevrolet Sales India (P) Ltd.,

Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate,

Halol – 389351, Dist, Panchamahals, Gujarat.

 

2.The General Manager,

KLN Motors Agencies (P) Ltd.,

Old No.861, New No.232, PH Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

3. The Manager – Customer,

KLN Motors Agencies (P) Ltd.,

Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 21.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s.Lavanya Shankar

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties     : K.Sudha, S.Rajalakshmi

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          The Complainant filed the Complaint to direct the 2^nd  Opposite Party to refund the excess amount  of Rs.14,704/-collected from the Complainant and also to refund the service charges to a tune of Rs.10,300/- during the warranty period and also direct the 3^rd Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.15,360/- towards loss of fuel incurred by her and also direct all the  Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of Rs.14,03,650/- towards mental agony, leakage of fuel and also replace a new beat diesel car with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is a physically challenged person with 75% disability and she is a practicing advocate.  Her husband is a retired government pensioner and now practices an advocate. The Complainant purchased a new Chevrolet Beat Diesel Car  from the 2^nd Opposite Party/ dealer on 13.06.2012  and paid a total sum of Rs.5,39,914/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued proforma for Rs.5,38,304/- . Thus, for the value of car, the 2^nd Opposite Party collected excess of Rs.1610/-.

          2. The Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.15,569/- for vehicle insurance. However, he had actually paid only a sum of Rs.13,472/- towards premium.  In respect of insurance the 2^nd Opposite Party collected an excess amount of Rs.2,097/-. Likewise for registration of vehicle, road tax and accessories he had collected a sum of Rs.57,521/- and he had paid to the RTO only a sum of Rs.46,523/- for the above purpose and in respect of the same he had collected an excess amount of Rs.10,998/-. Thus, on the aforesaid three heads, the 2^nd Opposite Party/ dealer collected a total sum of Rs.14,705/- while selling the vehicle to the Complainant.

          3. The 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer Chevrolet Beat Diesel Car  and the 3^rd Opposite Party is authorized service centre.  The Complainant left the vehicle with the 3^rd Opposite Party on 06.07.2012, 27.08.2012, 30.11.2012, 04.02.2013, 29.05.2013 and 11.09.2013 for servicing the vehicle including the free services.  Though the Complainant is having warranty for her vehicle, during free service also they have collected certain amount. On 11.11.2013 the Complainant took delivery of the vehicle from the 3^rd Opposite Party and she paid the bill amount of Rs.6,924/-. The brochure issued to the Complainant reveals the car would give 25.44 kilometers per liter. The mileage of the vehicle drastically has come down less than 7.5 kilometers. The performance of the vehicle in fuel consumption is very poor and not assured by the dealer at the time of selling the vehicle. The Opposite Parties have sold the defective vehicle to the Complainant and that is why as stated in the brochure the kilometers was not given. The services also have not been done properly by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to direct the 2^nd  Opposite Party to refund the excess amount  of Rs.14,705/-collected from the Complainant and also refund the service charges to a tune of Rs.10,300/- during the warranty period and also direct the 3^rd Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.15,360/- towards loss of fuel incurred by her and also direct all the  Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of Rs.14,03,650/- towards mental agony, leakage of fuel and also replace a new beat diesel car with cost of the Complaint.   

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY AND 2^nd & 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is only bound to repair/rectify the defective part of the vehicle. The warranty also clear to the limited extent of repair or rectify the defective part. The entire engine assembly of the vehicle in question has been changed without taking even single penny from the Complainant. The Complainant first to understand that mileage is the relative concept  depend upon various factors  but not limited to driving condition, claiming style and technical nuances etc., The owner’s manual issued to every Consumer. The said manual deals about to achieve maximum fuel economy to accelerate slowly, avoid unnecessary idling, keep the engine properly tuned, do not race the engine, use the air-conditioning only when necessary, slow down when driving on rough roads, keep the tyres inflated to the recommended pressure, maintain safe distance from other vehicle, do not carry unnecessary wait and do not rest foot on the brake pedal while driving and then only the vehicle would achieve the kilometers.

5. The 1^st Opposite Party strongly refused the allegation that the vehicle suffer from defect. When the vehicle is driven by two individuals who altogether may adopt different style while driving, which may be the root cause of the drop in mileage as alleged. The 3^rd Opposite Party would state what are all replacement parts are not covered under the terms of warranty they have replaced on chargeable basis. The 2^nd Opposite Party admits the collection of amount from the Complainant and he had used from the balance amount a sum of Rs.11/- for postal and handling charges and a sum of Rs.10,998/- is utilized for floor mat, mud flap, fuel expense, delivery kit, number plate and pooja expenses. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer   of the New Chevrolet Beat Diesel Car  and the  2^nd Opposite Party is the  dealer  of the said car and the third Opposite Party is the authorized service center and the Complainant is the physically handicapped person and she has purchased the aforesaid  Beat Diesel Car for a total consideration of Rs. 5,39,914/- as per Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 receipts and after purchase while the Complainant was using the vehicle, she left the vehicle to the 3^rd Opposite Party for service and he had issued Ex.A9 to Ex.A14, Ex.A21 & Ex.A28 job cards including three free services.

          8. The Complainant alleged deficiencies

1. against the 2^nd Opposite Party that he has collected an excess amount of Rs.14,505/- towards the vehicle cost, insurance amount and to register the vehicle which is nothing but an unfair trade practice,
2. The vehicle sold to her  is a defective one  and that is why the vehicle gave 7.6 kilometers per liter even though it was assured in Ex.A1 brochure that the  vehicle would give 25.44 kilometers is deficiency on the part of the manufacturer and  
3.  The 3^rd Opposite Party who has serviced the vehicle even during warranty period has charged amount for replacement of certain spares and furthers he has not properly serviced the vehicle and thereby committed deficiency.  

          9. Admittedly the 3^rd Opposite Party serviced the vehicle and also charged for the replacement of spares. He would state that even during warranty period the parts which are not covered under warranty that alone billed to the Complainant. The Complainant unable to show that the parts which are covered under warranty has been billed by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Further he could not able to establish that in what way the service done by the 3^rd Opposite Party is defective. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has not proved any deficiency against the 3^rd Opposite Party.

          10. According to the Complainant the fuel efficiency of the vehicle is very poor and it gave only 7.6 kilometers as against in Ex.A1 brochure that the vehicle would give 25.44 kilometers per liter and therefore the defective vehicle was sold to him.  The Complainant further contended the Opposite Parties admitted in the written version that entire engine assembly of the vehicle in question has been changed without taking single penny from the Complainant and that fact also proves that the vehicle is a defective one. It is not the case of the Complainant that entire engine assembly was changed after purchase of the vehicle by her. The Opposite Parties also submitted during arguments that they have not changed the entire engine assembly and such fact was inadvertently pleaded in the written versions. The Complainant filed petition to send the vehicle for mileage test and the said petition was allowed and the vehicle was also examined by Head of the Department of the Auto Mobile Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology, Chennai – 44 and issued Ex.C1 report. In the said report the vehicle was tested with well experienced driver, required tyre pressure both high way and city traffic condition and the vehicle was run 21.93 kilometers for one liter of diesel and for the city ridding the vehicle was run 17.6 kilometers for one liter of diesel.  As per the report in the high way the vehicle has run 21.93 about 22 kilometers per liter. Whereas in the brochures in Ex.A1 fuel efficiency given as 25.44 kilometers. There was no much difference between assured kilometers and the actual kilometers performed by the Complainant vehicle per liter diesel nearly after three years of purchase of the vehicle. The Complainant has not established any other fact that her vehicle is having defects. Therefore, we hold that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant has fuel efficiency and it is not a defective vehicle sold to her and therefore the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect.

          11. Ex.A2 invoice issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant for the beat diesel vehicle on road price for a sum of Rs.5,38,304/- However, the 2^nd Opposite Party collected under Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 receipt  that the sum of Rs.5,39,914/- and out of the said amount he had collected an excess of Rs.1,610/- In Ex.A2 invoice the insurance premium amount mentioned as 15,569/- and the 2^nd Opposite Party had actually paid   for insurance in Ex.A7 a sum of Rs.13,472/- and in that respect he has collected a sum of Rs.2,097/- towards excess amount for insurance. Likewise, for registration of vehicle, road tax and accessories a sum of Rs.57,521/- was collected in Ex.A2 and  in Ex.A16 Registration Certificate  he paid to the RTO only a sum of Rs.46,523/- and on this head he had collected an excess of Rs.10,998/- . The 2^nd Opposite Party stated in the written version that he had spent the excess amount by way of providing accessories like floor mat & mud flap, fuel expenses, delivery kit, number plate and pooja expenses etc. However no proof filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party that he had spent on accessories for the collection of excess amount and hence the same is rejected. Thus in all the above three heads the 2^nd Opposite Party/dealer had collected a sum of Rs.14,705/- by way of excess  amount and the said amount was not refunded to the Complainant even after demanded by the Complainant. Failure to refund the excess amount by the 2^nd Opposite Party clearly proves that the 2^nd Opposite Party had committed unfair trade practice and thereby committed deficiency in service.

          12. From the forgoing discussions we hold that the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the 2^nd Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

          The 2^nd Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.14,705/- from the Complainant and the said amount the Complainant is entitled for refund of the same from him. The 2^nd Opposite Party failed to refund the amount to the Complainant caused mental agony to him is accepted. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the 2^nd Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. In respect of the Opposite Parties  1 & 3 and  other reliefs the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.14,705/- (Rupees fourteen thousand seven hundred and five only) towards the excess collection  amount to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards  compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. In respect of the Opposite Parties  1 & 3 and other reliefs the Complaint is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Beat Diesel Car Brochure of KLN Motors

Ex.A2 dated 26.05.2012                   Proforma Invoice of KLN Motors Rs.5,38,304/-

Ex.A3 dated 13.06.2012                   Receipt No.000766 for Rs.10,000/-

Ex.A4 dated 18.06.2012                   Receipt No.000847 for Rs.1.19,819/-

Ex.A5 dated 22.06.2012                   Receipt No.000914 for Rs.4,10,000/-

Ex.A6 dated 27.06.2012                   Receipt No.000971 for Rs.95/-

                                                Total paid Rs.5,39,914/-

 

Ex.A7 dated 25.06.2012                   Vehicle Insurance Rs.13,472

Ex.A8 dated 26.06.2012                   R.C.No.TN18 W 1154 Road Tax Paid Rs.46,523/-

Ex.A9 dated 06.07.2012                   Job No.003027 for Rs.3421/-

Ex.A10 dated 27.08.2012                 Repair order No.1920 Charge Rs.1100/-

Ex.A11 dated 30.11.2012                 Job No.007265 Charged Rs.NIL

Ex.A12 dated 04.02.2013                 Job No.009212 Charged Rs.2276/-

Ex.A13 dated 29.05.2013                 Job No.001899 Charged Rs.NIL

Ex.A14 dated 09.11.2013                 Job No.006659 Charged Rs.6924/-

Ex.A15 dated 31.05.2013                 Doctor’s certificate for physically Handicap                                               

                                                    Driving

Ex.A16 dated 11.06.2013                 Retro fitment endorsement made in R.C.by the

                                                    RTO

 

Ex.A17 dated 14.06.2013                 LLR valid up to 13.12.2013 obtained

Ex.A18 dated 25.06.2013                 Renewal insurance half of the premium amount for

                                                    PH

Ex.A19 dated 28.04.2011                 G.O.Ms. (2D) No.162 Home (Transport1)

                                                    Department

 

Ex.A20 dated 29.12.76           G.O.Ms. No.3358 Home (TransportT)

                                                    Department

 

Ex.A21 dated 08.11.2013                 Job card (running km 18605) (Diesel in tank 6

                                                    point)

 

Ex.22 dated 11.11.2013          paid for Rs.6924/- and took delivery

Ex.A23 dated 12.11.2013                 Photo copy running km.18681/Diesel in tank 2

                                                Point

 

Ex.24 dated 14.11.2013          Legal notice issued

Ex.25 dated 19.11.2013          Reply received from General Motors India (P) Ltd

Ex.A26 dated 21.11.2013                 Reply received from KLN Motors Ambattur

Ex.A27 dated 12.12.2013                 Driving license received

Ex.A28 dated 22.02.2014                 Job card (running km 18881) (mileage test)

Ex.A29 dated 09.03.2014                 Petrol bunk bill

Ex.A30 dated 09.03.2014                 Photo copy of fuel waste

Ex.A31 dated 21.06.2014                 Legal Notice issued again

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Relevant extracts from the dealership agreement

                                                    entered between the 1^st Opposite Party & the 2^nd

                                                    Opposite Party

 

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Relevant extracts from the Owner’s Manual of the

                                                    impugned vehicle

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Comprehensive job sheet of the impugned vehicle

 

LIST OF COURT DOCUMENT:

Ex.C1 dated 23.06.2015                   Anna University Madras Institute of Technology

                                                    Campus Chromepet, Chennai      

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT