Complaint filed on: 08.01.2015
Complaint Disposed on:27.04.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.5/2015
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Krishnegowda S/o Lingappa Gowda,
R/o Basaravalli Village, Kanathi Post,
Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. G.K.Gangadhara, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1.The Chief Administrative
Officer, Mahindra & Mahindra
Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo
Bunder, Mumbai-400039.
2.The Proprietor,
Mahanth Motors,
Near Alkola Circle, Gadikoppa,
Sagar Road, Shivmogga.
3.The Proprietor,
Karnataka Agencies,
Mahindra Showroom &
Workshop, Gavanahalli,
K.M. Road, Chikmgalur.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. D.Druvanarayan, Advocate)
(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. D.K.Lakshmikanth, Advocate)
(OP No.3 By Sri/Smt. T.S.Uttaiah, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 3 alleging unfair trade practice in not completely repairing the vehicle Mahindra Pick Up. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 to 3 to replace the engine and gear box of the Mahindra Pick Up STDRE bearing registration No.KA-18/B-4366 along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased Mahindra Pick Up STDRE from Op no.2 on 16.10.2013 and got registered the vehicle into his name vide registration no.KA-18/B-4366. After purchase of the vehicle the complainant noticed there is a problem in the engine and gear box which was informed to Ops. Thereafter the Op no.3 has repaired the said vehicle on 18.12.2013, 29.01.2014, 15.03.2014 and 21.06.2014. After all the said repairs the defect was not rectified, subsequently complainant got repaired the said vehicle on 20.08.2014 from Op no.2 service station, even after the said repair also the defect in the gear box and engine was continued, the complainant had spent huge amount to rectify the defect in the engine and gear box. Even inspite of spending huge amount complainant was not satisfied with the repair made by Op no.1 to 3 due to continuation of the defects in the vehicle. Complainant suffered financial hardship and inconvenience. In this regard complainant made several requests and demands to replace the engine and gear box of the vehicle of the complainant, but Ops have not responded properly and not made any attempt to replace the engine and gear box of the vehicle. Hence, Op no.1 to 3 rendered unfair trade practice in not repairing the vehicle satisfactorily.
Finally complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.11.2014 to Op no.1 to 3 and called upon them to replace the gear box and engine of the vehicle. Even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Ops instead of replacing the said engine and gear box have replied untenably.
Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and prays for direction against Op no.1 to 3 to replace the gear box and engine of the vehicle bearing registration no.KA-18/B-4366 along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
3. After service of notice OP Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that this Op is ably supported by the excellent dealer ships/authorized service centers, like the 2nd & 3rd Op, having excellent workshop setup for after sales servicing of the utility vehicles, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only. It is submitted that the customers of all utility vehicles manufactured by the answering Op are provided services through a large network of around 334 authorized dealers, 360 Authorized service centers and 894 authorized service points. The network of such workshops/service points is being continuously enhanced & widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services as closer to the customers doorsteps as far as possible. Presently, the answering Op has such workshops in excess of 365 in numbers across the country. These workshops provide scheduled services, running repairs, major repairs, spare-parts support and even carry out accident repairs to the passenger cars and utility vehicles. It is stated that all dealer workshops have dedicated helpline for attending to any breakdown, thus providing assistance to the customers in distress situation and an all India 24x7 Toll free helping is operational over and above the dealership helpline. Every procedure for service/check-ups is standardized and procedures are laid down for the service centers, work shops, etc., for carrying out necessary services/check-ups/replacement as may be required. This Op has carved a niche for themselves in the products as well as in after sales service across the country. The manufacturers of the utility vehicles and the utility vehicles owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty policy applicable for the vehicle.
5. At the outset, this answering Op denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this written statement, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically travelled. It is also submitted that, anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to be expressly denied.
Op further contended that the complainant had misconceived and made baseless allegations against this Op that no documentary evidence in support of the allegations. The warranty offered on several vehicle manufactured by this Op is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty as contended in the owners manual and service book. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and brought at the workshop of the India Garage for accidental repairs. In this regard clause 9 terms and conditions of the warranty which clearly stipulates that “Repairs required because of accident, misuse, abuse, neglect are not covered under warranty”. Hence, the complainant cannot claim any benefit as per the terms and conditions of the warranty issued to him.
Op no.1 further contended that the vehicle of the complainant was forwarded for repair on 17.09.2014 at 27,785 Kms for accidental repairs. The authorized service centre have repaired the vehicle with his approval to carry out the necessary jobs on paid basis. The complainant for which opted for an insurance claimed from Op no.1 and requested the workshop to prepare an estimate for repairs. Upon the request by the complainant the workshop prepared the estimation cost of repairs submitted the same to the Op no.3 for further process. Finally Op no.1 after completing the survey of the vehicle had sanctioned only Rs.21,943/- towards the claim. After that the accidental repairs were carried out and vehicle was delivered to the complainant with satisfaction and vehicle was made fully roadworthy. There is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this Op in selling the vehicle to the complainant. There is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence, they are not liable to replace the engine or gear box as alleged by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Op no.2 in his version has contended that the complainant has purchased Mahindra Pick Up on 16.10.2013 from this Op, but it is false that the vehicle started giving problem in the engine and gear box which was not repaired by this Op. On 20.08.2014 this Op repaired the vehicle, but it is false that complainant had spent huge amount towards the repair of the vehicle.
Op no.2 further contended that on 18.08.2014 the complainant brought the vehicle with the problem of gear box and low mileage and this Op noticed that the complainant was not properly using the clutch at the time of shifting of the gear and as such the synchronizer rings have been damaged and this Op changed the rings and filters and after due repairs. Subsequently, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and complainant took the vehicle with full satisfaction. The complainant has plied the vehicle up to 22,689 Kms as on 17.09.2014 and he brought the vehicle on 17.09.2014 for repairs as the vehicle met with an accident. After the necessary repairs the complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. This Op had repaired the vehicle as and on the complainant brought to them and hence there is no any unfair trade practice on the part of this Op and they are not liable to replace any gear box or engine of the vehicle to the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. Op no.3 in his version has contended that the complainant has filed this false complaint alleging unfair trade practice against this Op in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant made such a complaint though there was no such problem/complaint in the vehicle. However the repairs were done to the vehicle during the warranty period by this Op, this Op has thoroughly checked the gear box and engine to the satisfaction of the complainant.
The complainant has brought the vehicle for first service after plying up to 3,358 Km, thereafter the complainant got free services from this Op on 18.12.2013 as per the job card no.RO14D005435 and further the third service was also provide after plying of 14,874 Km on 15.03.2014 as per the job card no.RO14D007262. In all these free services the complainant had not reported any complaints or problems with respect to the gear box and engine, on each service the complainant took the vehicle with full satisfaction. The vehicle was regularly used by complainant without any problems. This Op has issued bills whenever the charges were made after the warranty period. Hence, they are not liable to replace gear box and engine of the vehicle of the complainant. There is no cause of action arose in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
8. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.7. Op No.2 and 3 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.5.
9. Heard the arguments.
10. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
11. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
12. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op no.1 to 3, the complainant alleges that he had purchased Mahindra Pick Up STDRE from Op no.2 on 16.10.2013 and after 15 days of purchase of the said vehicle he noticed that there is a problem with the vehicle and also noticed there is a problem in gear box and engine. The Op no.1 to 3 have repaired the vehicle on 18.12.2013, 29.01.2014, 15.03.2014 and 21.06.2014, inspite of all these repairs the problem in the gear box and engine was not rectified. Subsequently on 20.08.2014 also he repaired the vehicle from Op no.2, even after that repair also the defect in the engine and gear box of the vehicle was not rectified. Hence, alleges unfair trade practice and prays for replacement of the said gear box and engine of the vehicle and also prays for compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
13. On contrary Op no.1 to 3 have taken a contention that they have provided free services to the vehicle as per the warranty and for other repairs they have charged for the repairs and also alleges that the complainant at the time of taking three free services had not complained anything with respect to the gear box and engine. He brought the vehicle for further repair after it was met with an accident, for which they have repaired the vehicle and charged for the repair, after payment they have delivered the vehicle to the complainant and complainant also took the vehicle with full satisfaction. Hence, submits no unfair trade practice on their part.
14. Complainant produced owner’s manual marked as Ex.P.1, tax invoice issued by Mahanth Motors marked as Ex.P.2 and other tax invoices issued by Op no.3 towards three free services marked as Ex.P.3 and also produced office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.7. Except these documents had not produced any materials to establish that there is a problem in the gear box and engine of the vehicle.
Apart from that the Op no.1 to 3 have sworn their affidavit that the vehicle was met with an accident, for which they have repaired and collected the charges for the repairs. In this regard the Op no.2 also produced documents marked as Ex.R.2 which is the vehicle history which discloses that the vehicle met with an accident and other tax invoices produced by Op discloses that the complainant has not given any complaint with respect to the gear box and engine at the time of free services. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no any manufacturing defect or any defect in the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant has suppressed that the vehicle met with an accident before this Forum and simply alleges there is a defect in the gear box and engine of the vehicle. Without any proof and required materials this Forum cannot believe the mere allegations of the complainant. The complainant had not made any attempts to appoint any experts to inspect the vehicle to identify the defect in the gear box and engine. Inspite of that complainant simply sworn affidavit and alleges a defect in the gear box and engine of the vehicle. We found there is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 to 3 in repairing the vehicle of the complainant after accident and they have charged towards repair. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 27th day of April 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Users manual issued by Op no.1 to 3.
Ex.P.2 - Tax invoice issued by Op no.2.
Ex.P.3 - 4 Tax invoice issued by Op no.3.
Ex.P.4 to 6 - 3 Postal Ack. due.
Ex.P.7 - Office copy of the legal notice issued to Op no.1 to 3.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Authorization Letter.
Ex.R.2 - Computer generated job card.
Ex.R.3 - Another job card dated 18.08.2014.
Ex.R.4 - Reply notice dated 08.12.2014.
Ex.R.5 - Postal Ack.
Dated:27.04.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
