DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of July 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 07/11/2014
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.170/2014)
Ajayan
S/o Madhavan,
11/583, Attappallam,
Pampampallam (PO),
Palakakd 678 625 - Complainant
(Adv.Shri.Sreekumar & Adv.B.Gangadharan)
V/s
1. The General Manager - Opposite party
Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd,
Kinetic Innovation Park,
O Block, Plot 18/2 (part),
MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune,
Maharashtra – 411 019.
2. The General Manager
M/S Malang Motors,
Opp.Kavitha Automobile,
Kannara Street, G.B Road,
Palakkad 678 001
(Adv.Shri.G.Ananthakrishnan, K.B.Priya & A.K.Philip)
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The complainant purchased a Motor Cycle named as Mahindra Centuro Manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 03.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.49,353/- (Rupees forty nine thousand three hundred and fifty three only) from the 2nd opposite party. Immediately after a few days of purchase complainant noticed engine oil leakage from the engine of the vehicle and informed the 1st opposite party immediately. But the 1st opposite party after checking the vehicle inform the complainant that it is corrected and the vehicle will be in perfect running condition after the first service. But after few days the same defect started again. The complainant gave his vehicle for first service to the 2nd opposite party on 29.05.2014. Even after the first service the same problem persisted. The complainant approach the 2nd opposite party on many occasion after the first service, with the above mentioned mechanical defects but the 2nd opposite party made believe the complainant that the defect was cured. The vehicle started showing starting troubles and caused other inconveniences while travelling. Even after the 2nd service on 11.08.2014 the defect was not corrected. On 20.10.2014 after the 3rd service the defect was not corrected by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 26.09.2014 stating that the Motor Cycle has a manufacturing defects and also to replace the said Motor Cycle and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party received the notice and the 2nd opposite party replied to the notice stating their willingness to repair the vehicle, but refused to replace the vehicle. Even after conducting repairs the opposite parties have not cured the defect of the vehicle or replaced the vehicle. The 1st opposite party has not replied to the notice till date. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties are bound to take back the Motor Cycle and refund the purchase price paid thereof. The opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the harassment, troubles, loss of business, physical inconvenience and mental agony suffered by and arising directly out of the breach of duty on the part of opposite party. The complainant assesses such loss and damages at Rs.50,000/-. The complainant had approached before this Forum to issue an order to replace the Motor Cycle or award compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of the mental agony and other inconvenience caused to the complainant.
Opposite parties entered appearance upon the notice from the Forum and filed their versions denying the allegations stated in the complainant.
The 1st opposite party submits that the Motor Cycles manufactured by them pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the Motor Cycles are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). The Motor Cycle manufactured at the plant is also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorised dealer appointed on a ‘principal to principal’ basis for the sale of the Scooters and Motor Cycles.
The Motor Cycle purchased by the consumer requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components at recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book given at the time of sale, for smooth running and optimum performance. The 1st opposite party states that the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual, as recommended for smooth and maximum performance of the Scooter in question mainly correct operating procedures-do’s and don’ts for the maintenance and performance of the Motor Cycle. For effective maintenance and smooth running of the Motor Cycle, every customer has to carry out the mandatory recommended services at regular intervals at the authorised service centre/workshops of the opposite party. It was also submitted that as per the service schedules of the Motor Cycle in question, the complainant was supposed to bring the subject Motor Cycles at the recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book for carrying out the mandatory free services, however the complainant has not reduced any records, so as to show that he had regularly serviced the Motor Cycle, as per the recommended service schedule. It was also submitted that the complainant has purchased the Motor Cycle on or around 03.05.2014 from the 2nd opposite party and the said Motor Cycle had covered around 4638 kilo meters till 20.10.2014 and it manifests that the Motor Cycle with in a period of 5.5 months had covered (approx) 840 kilo meters per month. The said fact proves that the said Motor Cycle is in absolute road worthy condition and that the jobs carried out on the Motor Cycle are minor and running repairs, which were required to be carried out due to regular and continuous extensive and faulty usage of the said Motor Cycle. The opposite party has promptly attended to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty as and when reported by the complainant under the warranty. Therefore, the prayers as made by the complainant for replacement of the said Motor Cycle are untenable and unsustainable. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and manifold intension to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite party. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed.
The 2nd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant has purchased Mahindra Centura Motor Cycle bearing engine No. VPEED004553 and chases no. MCDKGIV.14 E1DO 4572 from this opposite party on 03.05.2014 for Rs.49,353/-. This vehicle was in excellent running condition at the time of delivery and there was no leakage or any defect at all. No complaint regarding oil leakage was pointed out even during the first free service carried out on 29.05.2014 after running 630 kilo meters. The same is indicated in the job card no.1532 dated. 29.05.2014. During the 2nd free service on 23.06.2014 the compliant of oil leakage was raised and the same was corrected to the satisfaction of the complainant. During the 3rd free service on 20.10.2014 carried out vide job card no.3155 the vehicle was again attended and repaired and returned duly replacing the clutch cover and CAM shaft Assembly. The complainant was fully satisfied while taking back the vehicle.
All the allegations made in the complaint are incorrect and baseless. This opposite party has done the service with utmost care and caution. The oil leakage was of course observed when the vehicle was brought for 2nd service and the same was corrected. The complainant had taken delivery only after being fully satisfied. The complainant has not suffered any loss, or mental agony as alleged, in this regard.
It may be seen that proper attention to the vehicle was given by this opposite party during 1st, 2nd & 3rd service and the complaints raised by the complainant were completely rectified to his satisfaction. Even the CAM shaft Assembly was replaced free of cost. The complainant is not entitled to claim any damages or replacement of the vehicle from this opposite party. All those are within the purview of the manufacturer and not on the 2nd opposite party who is only a dealer.
The complainant filed applications as IA 141/2015 to call for documents from 2nd opposite party and IA 142/2015 to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle. As per the order in IA 141/2015 2nd opposite party produced documents. IA 142/2015 was allowed and Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of RTO was appointed as expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle. Commissioner filed a detailed report after inspecting the vehicle.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A11 were marked. Experts commissioners report was marked as Ext.C1. 2nd Opposite party also chief affidavit. Complainant filed another application as IA 332/2016 to receive the witness list and to issue summons for examination of witness. Witness was examined as PW1. Meanwhile opposite party submitted that they ready to repair and replace the defective part of the vehicle. Hence the Forum directed the complainant to hand over the Motor Cycle to 2nd opposite party. Complainant produced the vehicle before the opposite party and states that the defects were not cured. He had also produced the bill issued by the opposite party for conducting the repairs. Ext.A12 to A14 were further marked from the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 series were marked from the side of opposite party. Evidence was closed matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration are.
1.Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party ?
3.If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 , 2 & 3
We have perused the affidavit and documents produced from both
sides. The expert commissioner has filed a detailed report after inspection of the disputed vehicle. He had stated that the inspected vehicle had a leak from the oil filler plug which should be rectified by replacing the same. It was also revealed that the cylinder head assembly with valve train is having manufacturing defect in this vehicle and hence to be replaced. On inspection the rocker screw was damaged and the engine was having an abnormal sound from the top part while working. Also abnormal rattling sound was found from the cylinder head of the engine from the rocker side. As per the direction from the Forum the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party for rectification of the above complaints found by the expert commissioner. The opposite party had rectified the accelator cable clutch and engine oil cable for an amount of Rs.703/- from the complainant. The complainant had produced the above bill before the Forum which was marked as Ext.A13. Complainant had also submitted that the defects are not completely cured by the opposite party. 2nd Opposite party had submitted that he has carried out all the repairs including the replacement of the cylinder head to the entire satisfaction of the complainant which was done as per the understanding between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party had admitted in their job card No.9356 (Ext. B5 series) which shows that the completion of the work of all the defects noticed by the expert commission was rectified. Hence it is obvious that, the allegation of the complainant that the above vehicle was having troubles and caused other inconvenience like engine troubles and engine noices from the new vehicle purchased by him were all proved and admitted by opposite party. Since the defects noted in the above vehicle had been cleared to the satisfaction of the complainant the Forum is of the opinion that the alleged vehicle need not be replaced. However, it is obvious that the complainant had suffered due to the above complaint which deserves to be amply and suitably compensated in terms of money and in the interest of justice. The opposite party had delayed service and had caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. In the said circumstances we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation for the harassment, troubles, loss of business, physical inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of this proceedings.
The afore said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipts of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of July 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Certificate of Registration of Vehicle No. KL-09-AG-9237
Ext.A2 – Retail Invoice issued by Malang Motors (Invoice No.2152 dated. 29.05.2014)
Ext.A3 – Retail Invoice issued by Malang Motors (Invoice No.2691 dated. 11.08.2014)
Ext.A4 - Retail Invoice issued by Malang Motors (Invoice No.3261 dated. 20.10.2014) Ext.A5 - Tax Invoice (Vehicle) Form 8B (Invoice No. 56 dated. 03.05.2014)
Ext.A6 - Copy of lawyer Notice dated.26.09.2014
Ext.A7 - Reply Notice dated.08.10.2014
Ext.A8 - Job Card and Acknowledgement (Job Card No. 1532 dated. 29.05.2014)
Ext.A9 - Job Card and Acknowledgement (Job Card No. 1842 dated. 23.06.2014)
Ext.A10 - Job Card and Acknowledgement (Job Card No. 2151 dated. 11.08.2014)
Ext.A11 - Job Card No. 3155 dated. 20.10.2014
Ext.A12 - Owner’s Manual of the vehicle
Ext.A13 - Retail Invoice No.2294 dated. 31.12.2016
Ext.A14 - Retail Invoice No. 1490 dated. 31.12.2016
Ext. C1 - Expert Commissioners report dated. 06.11.2015 (Shri.Appu.P.M,
Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Palakkad)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Photocopy of Job Card No. 1532 dated. 29.05.2014
Ext.B2 - Photocopy of Job Card No. 1842 dated. 23.06.2014
Ext.B3 - Photocopy of Job Card No. 2151 dated. 11.08.2014
Ext.B4 - Photocopy of Job Card No. 3155 dated. 20.10.2014
Ext. B5 Series - Job Card and Acknowledgement (Job Card No. 9356 dated. 29.12.2016)
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW 1 - Krishnamoorthy
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Cost
Rs. 5,000/-
