Date of Filing: 21.05.2010
Date of Order: 20.07.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 20th day of July 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 1170 OF 2010
Sri. S.Raghu,
S/o. R.Srinivas,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.23, Renuka Nilaya,
32nd Main, 7th Block,
B.H.C.S. Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore 560 085. Complainant
V/S
1. The General Manager,
Fiat India Automobie LTd.,
B-19, Ranjangaon MIDE Area,
Shirur District,
Pune – 412 210.
2. M/s Prerana Motor Private Limited,
No.132, Kantha Court, Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore 560 027.
Rep. by its Managing Director. Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the Member Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI)
The Complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant had booked a Fiat Palio SDX Diesel Car on 07.04.2009 with 1st OP and invoice supplied by the 2nd OP, who is the agent of the 1st OP in Bangalore. The registered number of the said vehicle is KA-05-MG-4739. The complainant took delivery of the said car on the date of delivery from the 2nd OP on 13.05.2009. While driving the said car on the date of delivery, the complainant noticed malfunctioning at the air conditioner in the said case. As such immediately came back to the said 2nd OP. The 2nd OP advice to take the care to their service center by informing the complainant that it was a minor defect which could be fixed in a short while. Thereafter the complainant took the said car to the service at the 2nd OP on 14.05.2009 and he was informed that there was no gas in the air conditioner by the mechanics at the service center of the OP2 and further one A.C.Knob lock was broken inside. Thereafter the complainant contacted the service center, the 2nd OP sent a technician to the residence of the complainant on the same day, who merely acknowledged the defect in the A.C. and made the complainant to speak to the service manager of 2nd OP, who promised that the said A.C. could be repaired on the next day on 15.05.2009 after several reminders to the 2nd OP. One of the technician was sent for picking up the said vehicle for the repair on 16.05.2009, the complainant was again called up on his phone by the 2nd OP who informed that certain defective parts at the A.C. has been ordered from the factory for which they require 5 to 6 days time for arrival of the parts and requested the complainant to take back the said car on 17.05.2009, the said car was kept with 2nd OP till 24.05.2009, when the 2nd OP claimed that the said vehicle is free from all defects and requested the complainant to take delivery of the said vehicle, in the mean time, as the complainant was disappointed with the quality of the said vehicle delivered to him. On 24.05.2009, as stated above, though the said air conditioner of the car functioned till 08.06.2009. The complainant has left the said vehicle for repairs with the OP 2 on 10.07.2009, 20.07.2009, 22.07.2009, 24.09.2009, 25.11.2009 and 06.02.2010 and on all the occasions the said vehicle was left for rectification of the said A.C.. The opposite parties failure to rectify the same inspite of repeated demands of the complainant. Wherefore the complainant prayed this Hon’ble Forum pleased to direct the OP to deliver a Brand new Fiat Palio SDX Car of the same value to the complainant and grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to OPs by RPAD. OP 1 has put in appearance through an advocate and filed defence version. OP 1 has stated that, opposite party No.1 i.e., Fiat India Automobiles Limited is the manufacturer of Polio Family model. OP1 is one of the leading car makers in the world and has a formidable reputation in the automobile industries. If any defect in the vehicle or parts thereof, that has come up because of the wrongful handling of the vehicle or any mishap that may have occurred to the vehicle for any reason whatsoever and does not fall within the ambit of manufacturing defects. The vehicle of the complainant was duly attended to whenever it was brought to the service center, and all troubles, if any, were always resolved. The complainant has filed the instant complaint, seeking a direction to the OP to deliver a broad new Fiat Palio SDX Diesel Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MG-4739 along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, it is pertinent to note that the complainant is not entitled for the relief, as he has suppressed material facts from this Hon’ble forum. The complainant has filed this complaint with an intention of monitory gain and harass, Hence the complaint should be dismissed.
4. The OP 2 has submitted that on 15.05.2009, the opposite party picked up the vehicle is totally false, The allegation is that, on 16.05.2009, the OP informed the complainant that certain defective parts of the A.C. has been ordered from the factory which would take 5 to 6 days is also denied as false and untrue. It is however true that the vehicle reported to the opposite party’s workshop on 17.05.2009 for A/C trouble. On inspection it was noticed that there was malfunction in the A.C unit and as the vehicle was in warranty, the entire HVAC unit was replaced at free of cost under warranty. On 10.07.2009 the vehicle was left for the mandatory and schedule 1st free service, wherein it was noticed that the A/C direction switch was loose and had to be serviced as per the guidelines of the 1st free service , and the vehicle was re-delivered to the complainant is excellent condition. On 22.07.2009, the vehicle reported for running repairs with complaints of noise in the blower. Upon inspection, it was found that there was a paper pieces in the blower causing noise and the same was removed and the vehicle was redelivered in good condition. On 24.09.2009 the vehicle was reported for insufficient A/C cooling upon inspection. It was found that, the A/C wiring was partially cut due to rat entry and the same was rewired free of cost under warranty.
5. Since 06.02.2010, till date, the vehicle had not reported to the opposite parties for any further repairs. On the loss reported service all the vehicles parameters were checked and there were no problem with the A/C or the vehicle. He is at liberty to ring the vehicle for inspection and needful action and the opposite party assured him at complete and thorough inspection, needful repair if any and total co-operation. The question of paying damages without any basis does not arise. Hence dismissed the complaint.
6. Affidavit Evidence of both parties filed. Perused the Affidavit and documents. Arguments are heard.
7. The Points for consideration are
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2) What order and relief?
8. Perused the Complaint, version and documents. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had booked a Fiat Palio SDX Diesel car on 07.04.2009 with the OP1, and took delivery on 13.05.2009 from OP 2 with registration number of the said vehicle KA-09-MG-4739. After the complainant took the said car to the service center of the 2nd OP on 14.05.2009, he was informed that, there was no gas in the air conditioner by the mechanics at the service center, further one A.C.Knob lock was broken inside. OP 2 informed the complainant that the said A.C. was in working condition after repair. While driving back, the complainant found that the said A.C. was again malfunctioning. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP 2 and OP 2 sent a technician to the residence of the complainant. On 15.05.2009, after several reminders to 2nd OP one of the technician was sent for picking up the said vehicle for the repair, the 2nd OP called the complainant and informed him that there was a serious laps in pre-delivery inspection of the said car and OP 2 was informed that certain defective parts of the A.C. has been ordered from the factory for which they require 5-6 days time for arrival of the parts. Accordingly the complainant took back the car. The complainant has produced Job Card(Document No.7) issued by the OP 2, in the Job Card endorsed that on 24.05.2009 the above said vehicle has been delivered after repair for the A.C. malfunction found on 1st deliver and S.Raghu take permission of the vehicle on the condition that, if the vehicle is found defective either mechanical or electrical, the defect is obliged to repair the said vehicle. “it clearly shows that the A.C. unit has defective, and Document No.11 produced by complainant endorsed that “After several time of some old complaints from the day one of delivery of the car, now I have to check the problems have been verified now for one month, if, the problem occurs or came again, I have no other option just go to the ‘Prerana Motors’ and drop the Car and claim for a new Car legally” this endorsement indicates that the A.C. unit is defective one. At the time of argument, the opposite party No.1 has submitted that we are ready to replace the A.C. unit to the complainant and it clearly shows that the opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency of service to the complainant. Since the OP No.1 is ready to replace the A.C. Unit, the only A.C. Unit is defective one, the question of replacing the new branded car does not arise and question of granting compensation is unwarranted. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The OP No.1 is directed to replace the A.C. Unit to the complainant Car Fiat Palio SDX bearing No. KA-05-MG-4739 within 30 days from the date of Order.
OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings of the complaint.
Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF July 2011
Order accordingly,
MEMBER
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
HAV*
