BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 144/2012 Filed on 03/05/2012
Dated: 15..05..2015
Complainant:
Ravi, S/o Kuttan Nadar, Kottakkuzhimele Puthen Veedu, Karipur, Malayinkeezhu-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Constantine. Y)
Opposite party:
General Manager, Maheendra T.V.S Company (P) Ltd., Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Laila)
This C.C having been heard on 23..03..2015, the Forum on 15..05..2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Gio-Truck from the opposite party on 26/04/2011 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same was delivered to the complainant on 27/04/2011. After getting delivery of the vehicle it is found that the speedometer of the vehicle is not functioning. Before 5000km the two back tyres become defective and the steppiny was also become defective. So the complainant purchased two tyres for Rs. 2350/- from MRF Company. After this on 07/08/2011 the vehicle is stopped during usage and he informed this to the opposite party. Then the serviceman of opposite party came and he tried to start the vehicle by pushing and pulling the same with a rope. The mode adopted by the serviceman caused mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party during the guarantee period itself is not ready to replace the vehicle or repair the same. Due to the negligent attitude of the opposite party, complainant had to spend an additional amount of Rs. 35,000/-. On 12/09/2011 send a legal notice to the opposite party for refunding Rs. 1,50,000/- along with Rs. 1,00,000/-. But no reply was received from opposite party side. Hence this complainant approached this Hon’ble Forum for directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- being the cost of the vehicle along with Rs. 35,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
2. On receiving notice opposite party filed version contending that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after pre-delivery inspection and the vehicle is in good condition at the time of delivery. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after satisfying the condition of the vehicle. The speedometer of the vehicle is at good condition and the complainant never made any complaint regarding speedometer with opposite party’s workshop. If the complaint is within the warranty period it would have been replaced by opposite party. The complainant also made no complaint regarding the back or steppiny tyres to this opposite party and as the tyre is one of the proprietary item opposite party is not liable to change the same under warranty. On 07/08/2011 no complaint is made by the complainant to this opposite party but on 02/08/2011 this opposite party attended the vehicle of the complainant while it stopped during usage. The mode of operation done by the service person was as per the manufacturer’s guidelines. Moreover for pulling the engine manually, in all Geo-Truck vehicles there is a pulley attached to the left side of engine and the manufacturer also provided special type of rope for pulling. So there is no chance for mental agony. On 02/08/2011 there was only a minor problem with gear cable which was renewed under warranty on the same day. The complainant is availing service of the opposite party even after the warranty period and also availed free services. This opposite party has no liability to replace the vehicle and the allegation that the complainant spent additional expenses is false and hence denied. After sending legal notice complainant apologised for his act and so the opposite party did not sent any reply to that. There is no cause of action for this complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed and hence complaint is only to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit and 4 documents. He was cross examined and Exts. P1 to P4 marked. Opposite party filed affidavit and 10 documents and are marked as Exts D1 to D10. Opposite party was cross examined for complainant.
3. Issues :
(I) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Gio-Truck from the opposite party on 26/04/2011 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and it was defective. After getting delivery of the vehicle the speedometer was not working and before completing 5000km its back two tyres and steppiny tyre also became punctured and he purchased two tyres from MRF company spending Rs.2300/-. The complainant did not produce any document to show that the speedometer was not working at the time of delivery as it was one year before filing this complaint. He did not produce any document to show that he purchased two tyres for Rs. 2300/-. While cross examination complainant deposed that there was no speedometer at the time of purchase vehicle itself. Moreover opposite party produced Ext. D1 job card dated 27/05/2011 which shows that there was no complaint for the speedometer of the vehicle. As per Ext. D2 job card also there is no speedometer complaint. According to the opposite party there was no complaint for the tyre and the complainant did not produce any evidence to show the defect or purchase of new tyres. According to the opposite party the complainant did not make any complaint on 07/08/2011 and the opposite party attended the vehicle of the complainant on 02/08/2011 while it stopped during the usage. The mode adopted by the service person for starting the engine was purely as per the manufacturer’s direction and for proving this opposite party produced Ext. D3 owner’s manual. Moreover while cross examination of the complainant he himself stated that his driver was there at the time of work and there is no chance of mental agony for the complainant. The opposite party himself admits that they changed the speedometer pinion on warranty and Ext. D4 job card dated 26/08/2011 is also produced to show this. The complainant did not produce any evidence to prove his case and the opposite party produced all documents to substantiate their case. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought for and hence complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15h day of May, 2015.
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad. Sd/-L IJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 144/2012
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness
PW1 : K. Ravi
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of certificate of Registration of vehicle No.KL-20-C-3020
P2 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 12/09/2011
P3 : Postal receipt
P4 : Acknowledgement card
III. Opposite party’s witness:
DW1 : Vishnu G.B
IV. Opposite party’s documents:
D1 : Last card dated 27/05/11 issued by opposite party
D2 : Last card dated 26/07/2011 issued by opposite party
D3 : Owner’s Manual; Mahindra GIO
D4 : Prosper warranty KG dated 26/08/2011 issued by the opposite party
D5 : Repair order dated 18/11/11 issued by opposite party
D6 : Repair order dated 03/04/2012 issued by opposite party
D7 : Prosper Free Service 1 dated 27/05/2011
D8 : Gate pass dated 07/07/2012 issued by opposite party
D8(a) : Retail invoice dated 07/07/2012 issued by opposite party
D9 : Vehicle Care Inspection check sheet dated 23/06/2012
D9(a) : Repair order dated 26/06/2012 issued by opposite party
D9(b) : Parts Indent dated 23/06/20012 issued by opposite party
D10 : Vehicle Care Inspection check test dated 09/08/2012
D10(a) : Repair order dated 09/08/12 issued by opposite party
D10(b) : Parts Indent dated 09/08/2012 issued by opposite party
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Ad.
