DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  2^nd day of  June, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 12/03/2020  

                         CC/43/2020

Jayaprem V.J.,

S/o. Jayapalan,

Vedikkath House,

Pampampallam, Kanjikode,

Palakkad – 678 621.                                                    -                       Complainant

(By Adv. M/s Sreejith Menon M. & Sunitha K.)

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Officer Concerned,

M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Pvt. Ltd.,

Corporate Office, Gateway Building,

Appolo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 039

2. The Officer Concerned,

M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Pvt. Ltd.,

Regional Office, Automotive Section,

34/1128, Balakrishna Menon Road,

Edappally P.O., Cochin – 682 024

    3.     Service Manager,

            M/s.Eram Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

            38/293, Near Manjakulam Masjid,

            Manjakulam Road, Palakkad – 678 001

    4.     The General Manager,

            M/s. Eram Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

            4/623, AMI Building, Pirayiri Post,

            Palakkad – 678 004                                        -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.s  1&2  by Adv. M/s. Saji Mathew & Shiju Kuriakose

 O.P.s  3 & 4 By Adv. Praveen Raj  U)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant pleads that he purchased a Bolero Power Plus ZXL Micro Hybrid SUV car on 1/5/2017 from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. Even while the car was within warranty period, the 1^st opposite party had issued advisory to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite  parties to recall the vehicles as they were having inherent manufacturing defects. While so, during a travel to Kozhikkode from Palakkad the clutch pad of the vehicle started malfunctioning and hence the complainant had to stop the vehicle resulting in failure to attend the meeting the next day, incurring a loss of over Rs.5 lakhs. The O.P.s 3 and 4 had failed to provide way side assistance. Further the vehicle has started rusting all over. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed seeking replacement of the car and compensation coupled with other incidental reliefs.
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed detailed version negating the complaint pleadings. They stated that the vehicle had already covered 71,768 kms before the complaint is filed. The vehicle was admitted on 4/11/2019 for clutch work and the vehicle was delivered on 6/11/2019 itself.  The first opposite party disputed all the contentions with regard to rusting of the vehicle.  If at all there was any rusting it was due to mismanagement by the complainant himself and it is not attributable to any manufacturing defect.
3. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version adopting similar contentions as that of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. There had been no occasion for recall of any vehicles as alleged in the complaint. There was no manufacturing defect and the complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for.
4.  Issues that  arise for consideration are as herein below:

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving manufacturing defect?

2. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s1 & 2?
3. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s 3 & 4?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

5.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)     The complainant was initially directed to file proof affidavit on 16/10/2020. Thereafter the complainant filed an application as IA 48/2021 seeking direction to the OPs to produce the address of some necessary parties.  On 3/12/2021, IA 48/2021 was dismissed and the complainant was directed to file proof affidavit. On 10/1/2021 complainant sought time for filing commission application after nearly 13 months of filing the complaint. After 7 months of seeking time for filing commission application, the complainant filed an application as IA 363/2022. But the complainant had not filed a panel of experts accompanying the said application. Hence, IA was rejected after two months on 25/10/2022 and was directed to file proof affidavit again on 25/10/2022. The complainant had failed to  file poof affidavit on 30/11/2022 and hence evidence of complainant was closed.    After 2 months, on 10/2/20223, counsel for complainant filed two applications as IA 84/2023 to reopen evidence and IA 85/20223 to appoint an expert commissioner. Both these IAs were dismissed by detailed order. Therefore, courtesy to the delay tactics played by the complainant, they stand precluded from adducing any evidence.

   (ii)                OPs 1 & 2 filed proof affidavit and their document  marked as Ext.B3.    

   (iii)   OPs 3 & 4 filed proof affidavit and their documents were marked as Exts.B1 & B2.  Marking of Exts. B1 & B2 were objected to on the ground there were photocopies and there were not properly sealed by the issuing office.

                                    Complainant has no case that Exts. B1  & B2 are forged documents. Since this Commission not bound by Indian Evidence Act, we overrule the objections of the complainant. Even though Ext.B3 is not objected to, this document is a part of a document. This Commission is left with no assistance as to ascertain whether this forms the warranty conditions applicable to the vehicle in question or that whether the said warranty conditions come with some provisos. Hence we are rejecting Ext.B1 and they will not be used for any evidentiary purposes for the purpose of adjudicating this dispute.  

Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         As already stated complainant’s  case is that the vehicle manufactured by the OPs 1 & 2 suffers from inherent manufacturing defects. Per complainant, the clutch pad was malfunctioning and the vehicle has rusted all over. Opposite parties pleaded that the vehicle already plied for over 71,768 kms before it was taken to the  OP’s yard.  Ext. B1 is the vehicle history of  the complainants vehicle. The repair order is dated 18.2.2020. On that day the vehicle has plied 71,768kms. Moreover the vehicle was purchased as early as 1/5/2017.  Hence, we are constrained to hold that there are no manufacturing defect in so far the functioning of the car is concerned.

7.         The 2^nd allegation is with regard to rusting of the car.  The complainant has failed to take timely action so that a studied conclusion can be arrived at by this Commission. The delay of over 2 years and dragging of the complaint without taking any solid and concrete actions to prove his case can only generate a presumption that the complainant’s case lack in merit.

8.         Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case. 

Issue Nos.2 & 3

9.         Apropos the finding  in Issue No.1, we hold that there are no  manufacturing defects, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service  attributable to the opposite parties.

            Issue Nos. 4 & 5

10.       Resultantly, the complainant  is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.  With this conclusion, complaint is dismissed.

11.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd  day of June, 2023.     

      Sd/- 

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 –  Copy of Vehicle history

Ext.B2  - Original satisfaction note dated 6/11/2019

Ext.B3 – Copy of part of Owner’s Manual showing standard warranty

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.