IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr.Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                                                                                 CC No.  156/2011

Wednesday, the 30^th day September, 2015

Petitioner                                  :         Mariamma Chacko,

                                                          Muriankavumkal House,

                                                          Pongathanam P.O.

                                                          Changanacherry.

                                                          (Adv. Sunish G. Kumar)

Vs

Opposite parties                       : 1)     The General Manager,

                                                          (Marketing Strategy and Development)

                                                          Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1,

                                                           Nelson Mandela Road,

                                                          Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.                                                                                      

                                                         (Adv. Zakhier Hussain)

                                                2)       The General Manager,

                                                          ABT Maruti, 180, Race Course,

                                                          Coimbatore.                                                                                                         

                                                          (Adv. Roy Jose and Adv. Seby Augustine)

                                                3)       The Manager,

                                                          Intimate Auto mobiles,

                                                          Near Kannavatta Bridge, 1/30 A,

                                                          Industrial Estate Nagar P.O.

                                                          Thengana, changanacherry.

                                                          (Adv. Sabu K.)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

          The case of the complainant filed on 25/06/2011 is as follows.

          The complainant on 21/12/2009 purchased his Alto Lxi of Silky silver colour car bearing Reg. No. KL/33A/1333 manufacturing by the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.2,84,637/- through the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer and 3^rd opposite party is the sales agent in between the customer and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.     According to the complainant at the time of delivery, he noticed some sort of scratches on the bonnet of which with colour fading and that was rectified by the 3^rd opposite party on his complaint.  According to the complainant, just after six months of use of the vehicle in the month June 2010, he noticed that heavy and serious inflow of water was present while the car runs through water road.  Furthermore the centre lock system is also defective.  That even through the 3^rd opposite party took the vehicle two times                  in order to render services as prescribed, they also made the complainant believe that they have rectified the said complaints of water leaking.  But each times the defects remains and still it continuous.  According to the complainant, the  said defects is due to the manufacturing defects and such defects are never expected from a vehicle manufactured by a repudiated company like the 1^st opposite party.  Then on 10/11/2012, complainant sent lawyers notice to the opposite parties.  But so far there is no reply from the opposite parties.  After that the complainant appointed an insurance surveyor and loss assessor and he prepared a report stating the defects of the vehicle.  According to the complainant, due to the serious manufacturing defects, the vehicle is unsuitable for use.  So the act of opposite party to sell the vehicle having manufacturing defects, is amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint filed for the order directing to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle and compensation and cost.

          First opposite party filed version contenting that complainant entered into an independent contract for purchase of vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party and he had paid the consideration to them only.  The complainant is not a consumer of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer.  And the relationship between the 1^st opposite party and the dealer is that of principal to principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the parties.  The 3^rd opposite party is not an authorised workshop of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party applies latest technology in its paint process and the vehicle was in perfect OK condition at the time of sale.  Furthermore, vehicle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party after being certified FCOK are dispatched to dealer destination.  Even slightest of abnormality do not go un-detected and if any problem is detected then said car is not dispatched for sale.  And the dealers at the time of sale to their customers                  carryout final pre-delivery inspection of all vehicles ensuring the same are safe and in perfect OK roadworthy condition leaving no place for defects in vehicle.  The complainant’s vehicle has undergone the said process by the opposite parties and was free from any defect.  The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle from the showroom of the 2^nd opposite party after being completely satisfied on 21/11/2009 and not from the 3^rd opposite party.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant is quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle and the complainant plyed the vehicle in very negligent and improper manner in flood water, resultantly, the water entered inside the vehicle.  And such negligence may also lead to rusting / corrosion in the vehicle for which the 1^st opposite party is not responsible.  At the time of service, the complainant did not report any problem in the vehicle or any abnormality was observed by the expert service engineer of the workshop.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the Surveyor who inspected the vehicle is neither competent nor authorised to carry any inspection of the vehicle.  The role of loss assessor / surveyor is to assess the accidental loss suffered by the vehicle and not the defects in the vehicle.  According to the 1^st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 

          Second opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of Maruti ALTO LXI vehicle in December 2009 by the complainant.  According to the 2^nd opposite party after the purchase of the vehicle, complainant did not came to the office of the 2^nd opposite party or did not inform that she was facing any problem with the vehicle.  All the manufacturing defects seen in a vehicle would be rectified on free of cost by any service station.  But the defect in the complainant’s vehicle is due to improper usage by the complainant.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

          3^rd opposite party filed version stating that some minor complaints have been repaired and cured by the 3rde opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party inspected the vehicle twice and cured the defects of the vehicle and 3^rd opposite party has not seen or noted any serious inflow of water in the vehicle.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice from the part of them and 3^rd opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

Points for considerations are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and costs?

          Evidence in this case consists of the Chief and Proof affidavits of both sides and the deposition of the complainant as Pw2 and the deposition of the Commissioner as Pw1.  And Ext.A₁ to A₁₁ from the side of the complainant.

Point No.1

          Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in delivering a Aulto car having serious manufacturing defects.  According to the complainant, at the time of delivery there was scratches on the bonnet with colour fading.  After six months of purchase, it was noticed that when the car way plying during rain, there was serious inflow of water.  Even after repeated service, the said defects was not cured.  Ext.A6 is the lawyers notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party stating the defects of the car and demanding replacement of the vehicle.  Ext.A6 notice was not replied by the opposite parties.  Ext.A9 is the report issued by a Chartered Engineer after inspecting the vehicle.  He certified that the disputed vehicle is not good in road worthy conditions in raining season.  On inspection of the vehicle it was found that water came from front left side of the joint portion of bottom and he stated that there is holes between the sheets of the chasis of the vehicle.  The Engineer, who issued A9 report was examined as Pw1 and he deposed that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects.  In our view, the act of the opposite party in supplying a defective car to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant demanded for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle.  Admittedly, the vehicle is in the custody of the complainant from 21/12/2009.  So replacement or refund of the amount is not allowable.  Without saying what had happened may caused much mental pain, loss, and suffering to the complainant.  So he is to be compensated.  All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.  Point No.1 found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed. 

          In the result,

1. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings.

          Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the Order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2015.

          Hon’ble Mr.Bose Augustine, President              Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member      Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of petitioner

Ext.A1  :  Copy of registration certificate (KL-33A-1333)

Ext.A2  :  Copy of tax licence

Ext.A3  :  Copy of receipt dtd.04/12/2009 from Intimate Automobiles

Ext.A4  :  Copy of receipt dtd.18/12/2009 from Intimate Automobiles

Ext.A5  :  Copy of driving license of petitioner

Ext.A6  :  Copy of lawyers notice (Adv. Roy Thomas) dtd.10/11/2010

Ext.A7  series :   Copy of postal receipts  (6 Nos.)

Ext.A8  Series:  Copy of Acknowlegement cards ( 5 Nos.)

Ext.A9  :  Survey Report dtd. 06/12/2010

Ext.A10 :  Series of photos (7 Nos.)

Ext.A11  :  Survey bill dtd.06/12/2010

Witness

Pw1  :  P.P. Dheerasimhan

Pw2  :  Mariamma Chancko

Documents of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent