S.Kalaiselvi,W/o.M.Shanmugam, filed a consumer case on 12 Apr 2017 against The Chevrolet Sales India(P) Ltd,The Manager, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 143/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 19 May 2017.
Complaint presented on: 26.06.2014
Order pronounced on: 12.04.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 12th 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 1st Opposite Party : M/s.Lavanya Shankar
Counsel for 2nd & 3rd 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 2nd 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 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party/ dealer on 13.06.2012 and paid a total sum of Rs.5,39,914/-. The 2nd Opposite Party issued proforma for Rs.5,38,304/- . Thus, for the value of car, the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 3rd Opposite Party is authorized service centre. The Complainant left the vehicle with the 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd Opposite Party. Therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to direct the 2nd 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 3rd 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 1st OPPOSITE PARTY AND 2nd & 3rd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The 1st 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 1st 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 3rd Opposite Party would state what are all replacement parts are not covered under the terms of warranty they have replaced on chargeable basis. The 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the New Chevrolet Beat Diesel Car and the 2nd 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 3rd 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
9. Admittedly the 3rd 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 3rd Opposite Party. Further he could not able to establish that in what way the service done by the 3rd Opposite Party is defective. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has not proved any deficiency against the 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant for the beat diesel vehicle on road price for a sum of Rs.5,38,304/- However, the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party clearly proves that the 2nd Opposite Party had committed unfair trade practice and thereby committed deficiency in service.
12. From the forgoing discussions we hold that the 1st & 3rd Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the 2nd Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.
13. POINT NO:2
The 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 12th 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 1st OPPOSITE PARTY :
Ex.B1 dated NIL Relevant extracts from the dealership agreement
entered between the 1st Opposite Party & the 2nd
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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.