IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 305/2016 (filed on 03-11-2016)
Petitioner : Jyothi Lakshmi P.R.
Pulimkunnel House,
Chengalam P.O. Elamkulam,
Kottayam - 686585
(Adv. Suresh K.G.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The General Manager,
Volks Wagen Group Sales
India (Pvt. Ltd.)
North Avenue Level IV,
Make Up, Maxity Bandra,
Kuela Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai – 400051.
(Deleted as per Order in IA 69/18)
2) The Manager,
Ramani Cars (Pvt. Ltd)
Plot No.55/28, 131/2
Omaker Main Road,
Near Five Roads, Narasothipatty, Salem, Pin – 636004.
3) The Manager,
EVM Motors & Vehicle India (P)
Ltd. Building No. XI/14CE,
Opp. St. Mary’s Chappel,
Thellakam, Ettumanoor,
Kottayam – 686 630.
(For Op2 and 3, Adv. Muhammad Nizar M.P.)
4) Manager,
Volks Wages Sales India (Pvt. Ltd)
3rd and 4th Floor,
Silver Utopia Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakkala Andheri East,
Mumbai - 16
(Additional opposite party No.4 impleaded as per Order in IA 69/18)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complainant’s case is that her car met with an accident on 9.4.2016
while driven by her husband at Bangalore- Hokanakkal highway, Karnataka by hitting on a dog. After the accident though he could move further, the car was stopped after a while. Thereafter he contacted the 4th additional opposite party the manufacturer and according to their direction, entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party, the authorised service Centre who took the vehicle from the accident spot.
It was found that the engine of the vehicle was gone defective and damaged and for replacement and maintenance an estimate of Rs.4,19,071/- was given by the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was purchased on 6.11.2014 and was damaged on 09-04-2016. The manufacturer has given a warranty of 2 years and the damage occurred in the warranty period. Though the complainant sent legal notices to the opposite parties the manufacturer refused to accept the said notices. The car was having a valid insurance policy also at the time of the accident. The damage to the vehicle caused because of the damage of the engine in the warranty period. So the complainant’s claim is that as the damage happened within the warranty period, the additional 4th opposite party who is the manufacturer is liable either to replace the car or refund the full amount with interest.
The Commission summoned the opposite parties but opposite parties 2 and 3 only appeared.
Subsequently the complainant filed IA 69/2018 for impleading additional
4th opposite party and vide the same petition deleted opposite party 1 from the party array. Though the additional opposite party 4 received the notice, they did not appear or file version. Hence addl. opposite party 4 was set exparte.
The contesting opposite party no. 2 and 3 have contended in their version that being the authorised service centre of the manufacturer the 2nd opposite party undertook the repair work of the complainant’s car which was admittedly hit by a stray dog. On the hitting of dog, the radiator of the car got damaged and due to overheating the engine got damaged. On the advise of the manufacturer the 2nd opposite party suggested for the replacement of the engine. The 2nd opposite party is not the manufacturer. The manufacturer 4th additional opposite party gives two year warranty against any manufacturing defects only and not to any damages caused due to external power. The complainant’s car was damaged due to the hit by a dog which is excluded from the warranty. As the insurance is not a party to the complaint, the case is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. As per the warranty policy the opposite party is responsible for carrying out the repairs and maintenance work for the manufacturing defects if any. For any defects occurred due to any accident or otherwise, the opposite party is not liable under the warranty conditions.
The complainant swore by affidavit along with Exhibit A1 to A9 towards
documentary evidence. PW1 to PW3 were examined.
The answering opposite party 2 filed proof affidavit along with Exhibit B1 and B2.
In the view of the above pleadings and evidence on record, we frame the
following issues.
1. Has the complainant framed out a definite case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so what are the reliefs?
Point no 1
The complainant alleges manufacturing defect and deficiency in the service rendered by the 2nd and 4th additional opposite parties as the engine of his car got damaged in the accident repair done by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party resisted the allegation as the damage was occurred due to accident by hitting on a dog and the accidental damages are excluded from the warranty as per the warranty conditions.
Page 5 of the exhibit A8 it is specifically excluded as
“Damages due to excessive engine speed, accidents, improper use of vehicle, overloading, use in car races, alternations, modifications or changes on the vehicle or its aggregates, except when recommended by Volkswagen”
Again page 7 specifies “This warranty does not cover damage caused due to external impact & consequential damages to other parts”
Thus the warranty conditions which were accepted by the complainant at the time of purchase of the car clearly excludes any damage occurred due to accident or external force. PW2, the husband of the complainant who drove the car at the time of the accident and the one and only eye witness of the accident deposed that the car hit on a stray dog. Again he deposed that after hitting the dog the car was driven for some more distance and thereafter it stopped.
On examining the deposition of the PW3, it is stated that if the radiator
got damaged, the engine would be overheated and the work described in A6
is to be done at the time of overheating.
Thus on a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, we infer that the
alleged damage caused to the engine of the car was happened due to the hitting of the car on a stray dog.
Moreover, the complainant though alleges that Exhibit A6 is given as an
after thought of 2nd opposite party as the engine of the car got damaged during the repair work done by the 2nd opposite party, she has not produced any cogent
evidence to prove that. No report of an expert is produced. Moreover, PW3 himself though is not an expert, has deposed that in usual practice a supplementary estimate is given after a detailed inspection. So Exbt.A6 can be considered as the supplementary estimate given by the 2nd opposite party bonafidely after starting the work.
The 2nd opposite party in its affidavit filed through one Jayaprakash, the Service Manager, has stated that on 11/4/2016 Exbt.B1 job card was opened for the repair work of the complainant’s vehicle, and on the basis of the initial examination A9, the first estimate was given and the work has started. In A9 the dismantling and subsequent supplementary quotations were admitted by the complainant. Only during the repair works, the 2nd opposite party came to know that that the engine was also damaged as there was leakage of the coolant. Thereafter a supplementary estimate was issued with the consent of the complainant. Though the complainant and her husband were intimated about the subsequent work, nobody turned up. Further he has deposed that PW3 has never visited the 2nd opposite party’s workshop or inspected the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party do not permit any third party to inspect their work without written request and permission.
So in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the engine of the
Car was damaged due to any manufacturing defect and on the basis of A8 warranty conditions, the opposite parties are not liable to replace the damaged vehicle.
In the light of above discussion we find that there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of April, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
PW1 – Jyothilakshmi P.R.
Pw2 – Jayesh Kumar
Pw3 – Saji Daniel
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC book (KL-34D/1161)
A2 – Copy of warranty coverage
A3 – Copy of owner warranty registration form.
A4 – Returned registered letter
A5- Postal receipts
A6 - Supplementary Estimate dtd.29-04-2016 for Rs.4,19,071/-
A7 – Copy of insurance package policy certificate
A8 – Original warranty
A9 – Estimate dtd.12-04-2016 from Volkswagen
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of job card dtd.11-04-16
B2 – Authorisation dated 06-12-21
By Order
Assistant Registrar
