Complaint filed on: 17.03.2015
Complaint Disposed on:04.04.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.69/2015
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.Madhusudan
S/o Thippeshappa,
Aged about 25 years,
Driver, Basavanahalli Village,
Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. H.C.Nataraja, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1.Manager,
Arvind Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Commercial Vehicle dealers,
N.H Road, Kadur Town &
Taluk, Chikmagalur District.
2. Manager,
Tata Motors Limited,
Lucknow/Jemshadpur/Pune.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. C.B.Sathisha, Advocate)
(OP No.2 -Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 & 2 alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 & 2 to replace the defective vehicle with new one along with compensation for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased TATA SUPERACE from Op no.1 on 13.03.2014 by availing a financial assistance from Mahendra Finance Company. After purchase of the said vehicle complainant plied it up to 3478 Kilo meter and he approached the Op no.1 on 21.04.2014 as there was a shortage of oil in the engine, the complainant tendered the vehicle for service as per the owner’s manual provided by Op no.1 & 2. At the time of service Op no.1 has received repair charges and provided a service. Thereafter on 05.06.2014 the complainant again approached Op no.1 with a complaint in clutch cover and plate, for which Op no.1 repaired the vehicle and complainant paid Rs.2040/- towards repair charges. Again on 11.08.2014 after plying 10,001 Km the complainant noticed the problem in the tyre and immediately approached the Op no.1, for which Op no.1 replaced the tyre and collected the repair charges.
The complainant noticed there is a problem in the engine of the vehicle and said vehicle had plied smoothly only up to 3478 Km, thereafter the said vehicle suffered one or the other complaint. Even complainant noticed there is a decrease of mileage from 16 Km per liter to 9 to 10 Km only. Complainant also noticed that if he plied the vehicle up to 50 Km the vehicle used to stop due to technical problems. In this respect the complainant had informed the Op no.1 on several occasions, but Op no.1 has not repaired the defects of the vehicle, due to non-repair of the vehicle complainant was unable to repay the installments towards loan which was availed for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant left the vehicle at Op no.1 for repair, but so far Op has not repaired and returned it to the complainant for the best reasons known to them.
The complainant finally issued legal notice and called upon the Op no.1 & 2 to replace the said defective vehicle with a new one, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Op no.1 & 2 not replaced the vehicle. Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Ops to replace the said defective vehicle with a new one which is having no defects along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 appeared through his counsel and filed version and Op no.2 placed exparte.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that the complainant has purchased TATA SUPERACE vehicle bearing registration no.KA-19-TX-7674 from this Op on 13.03.2014, at the time of purchase the vehicle was hypothecated to Mahendra Finance, but it is false that they are tie up with said Mahendra Finance.
On 28.04.2014 the vehicle of the complainant was serviced by Arvind Motors Pvt. Ltd., Shivmoga as per the request of the complainant. At the time of service they have changed the oil and service was carried out, the said service is a free service as per the user’s manual and no charges were collected from complainant, they have charged only for materials used at the time of first service. The vehicle was plied up to 3478 Km at the time of first service. Thereafter on 05.06.2014 this Op changed the clutch plate cover as per the norms and conditions of the Op no.2 and they are given the said clutch plate under warranty basis, they also replaced the clutch disc which was failed due to worn out and the said disc is not coming under warranty, for which they have charged and provided free labour service.
Thereafter the complainant plied the vehicle up to 10,001 Km and brought the vehicle with a complaint of bubbles in the tyre, the complainant himself replaced the said tyre with a new one by his own cost, but at the time of replacement of the tyre the complainant had not brought any complaint with respect to the vehicle, even the complainant has also not brought the vehicle to this company for replacement of the tyre, he only took the tyre from this Op.
Op further contended that as per the company specification the vehicle gives 14 to 16 Km per liter, but the mileage depends on the road, type of driving, stops and maintenance of the vehicle, but it is false that the vehicle was giving trouble regularly from the date of sale, the vehicle sold to the complainant was plied up to 25,431 Km within 9 months, which clearly goes to show that there is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. They have provided service to the vehicle as and on the complainant brought for service. They are always ready to solve the problems of the vehicle whenever the complainant informs with respect to the problem in the vehicle. Moreover the problems as alleged by complainant may be happened due to starvation of engine oil and lack of service of the vehicle at prescribed intervals. Anyhow there is no any problem in the engine of the vehicle, but complainant had brought the vehicle for first service at 3478 Km and afterwards plied up to 25,431 Km, but he has not done regular service and due to lack of regular service the engine seized. On 01.01.2015 when complainant came to this Op workshop, they have clearly intimated that due to lack of service they cannot repair the vehicle under warranty and informed that the vehicle will be repaired on payment basis. For which the complainant agreed and left the vehicle for repair, but he has not paid any advance amount and on 07.01.2015 he came to this Op workshop and given a consent letter stating that the said mistakes happened in that due to his negligence and lack of service. At the time of inspection complainant informed to this Op no.1 to change only engine oil and not to repair the vehicle and complainant forced them to change the engine oil only and also agreed that he himself responsible for all problems which arose in the said vehicle, thereafter he has taken the vehicle back, but on the same day he brought the vehicle, without any intimation, he kept the vehicle and went off. Subsequently he issued a legal notice, the same was replied suitably. Thereafter complainant filed this false complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Complainant filed this complaint only to hide his mistake and to gain wrongfully by harassing this Op and there is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this Op and also no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence they are not liable to replace the vehicle as claimed and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10. Op No.1 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.7.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
9. The case of the complainant is that on 13.03.2014 complainant purchased TATA SUPERACE from Op no.1 which was manufactured by Op no.2 and registered into his name vide registration no.KA-19-TX-7674, the complainant also availed a loan for purchase of the said vehicle, after purchase of the vehicle complainant plied up to 3478 Km and tendered it for first service, where the said authorized service provider of Op no.2 has serviced and changed the engine oil as per the norms, after that complainant noticed there is a problem in clutch and brought it for repair to Op no.1, for which on 05.06.2014 the clutch plate cover replaced and Op charged Rs.2,040/-, subsequently complainant brought the vehicle to Op no.1 on 11.08.2014 with a complaint of bubbles in the one of the tyre of the vehicle, for which Op replaced the tyre with a new one, subsequently complainant noticed decrease in the mileage as assured and also noticed it was giving problem while driving, he also noticed that the said vehicle used to stop after plying up to 50 Km, Hence, he suffered inconvenience due to defects in the vehicle, the complainant also not able to repay the loan installments. Finally complainant brought the vehicle for repair and left at Op no.1 workshop, afterwards he issued a legal notice and demanded for replacement of the vehicle as the said vehicle has a manufacturing defect.
On contrary, Op no.1 who sold the vehicle to complainant had taken a contention that after running the vehicle up to 3478 Km complainant obtained first service and they have replaced the engine oil and also provided service, but they have not charged as its comes under the warranty and only charged for materials, subsequently complainant brought the vehicle to them for replacement of the tyre, accordingly the tyre was replaced, but Op no.1 says that the complainant had not brought the vehicle for replacement of the tyre, he only purchased the tyre for replacement. Even after running up to 25,431 Km complainant had not brought the vehicle for regular service, finally they noticed the vehicle was seized due to starvation of the engine oil and suggested the complainant for repair of the engine, but complainant himself forced the Op no.1 replace only the engine oil, accordingly they have only replaced the engine oil, but on the same day complainant brought the vehicle stating engine was seized, for which they have suggested to repair at payment basis, but complainant had not ready to repair the vehicle, instead of that had issued legal notice. Hence submits unfair trade practice on the part of them.
On perusal of the documents produced by both the complainant and Op we noticed that complainant had only produced sales certificate marked as Ex.P.1, tax invoice marked as Ex.P.2, delivery receipt marked as Ex.P.3, insurance policy in the name of complainant marked as Ex.P.4, temporary certificate of registration marked as Ex.P.5, operators service book marked as Ex.P.6 and office copy of the legal notice with reply marked as Ex.P.7 and 8, further complainant produced tax invoice issued by Op for having received the service from Op no.1 marked as Ex.P.9 & 10. Except these documents complainant had not produced any material to establish that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the complainant had plied the vehicle up to 25,431 Km, after plying such extend of Kilo meters the complainant brought the vehicle with a problem of seizure of engine, for which the Op has replaced the engine oil only on the advice of the complainant. In this regard the Op had produced a letter issued by complainant marked as Ex.R.3, where the complainant had categorically admitted that he has not taken regular service after purchase of the vehicle and also admitted that he has not changed the engine oil regularly as per the owner’s manual, the Op also produced job card dated 05.06.2014 marked as Ex.R.2, wherein we noticed that complainant has plied the vehicle up to 3478 Km and we noticed that Op had replaced the clutch plate disc as it became hard, they have charged only towards spare parts and not repair charges. On observation of the said job card we noticed complainant has not given any complaint with respect to the engine of the vehicle, the Op have provided the service and repaired the vehicle as per the norms and user’s manual and in Ex.R.7 job card dated 14.03.2014 they have clearly mentioned that the complainant has not obtained regular service and also not changed the engine oil as and on it is required and also noticed that the second service was not obtained by complainant. Due to which the vehicle suffered seizure of the engine. The Op also sworn affidavit that they are ready to repair the vehicle on payment basis, but complainant is not agreeing. We are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice on the part of both Op no.1 and 2, it is only due to his negligence in maintaining the vehicle resulted in seizure of the engine. The said problem can be resolved only after payment of the repair charges. The complainant in order to avoid the said payment has filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice. We found as per the job card there is no any manufacturing defect found in the vehicle. Hence, the prayer for replacement of the vehicle is not justifiable, the complainant is at liberty to repair the vehicle by paying repair charges. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 4th day of April 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Sales Certificate issued by Op.
Ex.P.2 - Tax invoice.
Ex.P.3 - Delivery receipt.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of the policy.
Ex.P.5 - Temporary registration certificate.
Ex.P.6 - Service book.
Ex.P.7 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.8 - Reply to the legal notice.
Ex.P.9 - 2 Tax invoice towards the charges on repairs.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Tax Invoice dated 05.06.2014.
Ex.R.2 - Job card dated 05.06.2014.
Ex.R.3 - Copy of the cheque issued in the name of complainant for
Rs.1,621/-.
Ex.R.4 - Copy of the Passbook of Op no.1 towards realization of the
said amount.
Ex.R.5 - Letter dated 07.01.2015.
Ex.R.6 - Copy of the Owners manual.
Ex.R.7 - Another Job Card.
Dated:04.04.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
