Kerala

Idukki

CC/161/2018

Sanny K A - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Kerala Calls - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

15 May 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :  29.8.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  15^th  day of  May, 2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.161/2018

Between

Complainant                                           :     Sunny K.A.,

                                                                    Kattakkayathu House,

                                                                   Karimkunnam P.O.,

                                                                   Nellappara, Thodupuzha. 

          (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                      : 1. The Manager,

                                                                   Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd., (Kairali Ford),

                                                                   Kadathi, Market P.O.,

                                                                   Muvattupuzha – 686 673.

           (By Advs: P. Fazil, V.S. Sreejith

& Jithin Paul Varghese)

      2. The Manager,

                                                                   Ford India Ltd.,

                                                                   RMZ Millenium Business Park,

                                                                   143 Dr. MGR Road, North Veeranam Salai,

                                                                   Chennai – 600 096.

(By Advs:Deepak Sabharwal, Madhumita

& Gem Korason)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

1. Complainant had purchased a Ford Figo 1.5 TDCI Titanium BS IV model diesel car for total price of Rs.7.90 lakhs, on 23.4.2016, from 1^st opposite party, namely, Muvattupuzha branch of Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Kairali Ford), represented by its manager. 2^nd opposite party is Chennai branch of Ford India Ltd., represented by its manager.  Vehicle was duly registered with registration No.KL-38E-8867 and is being used by complainant.  He is attending to timely service of the vehicle.  Complainant had                                                                                                                 (cont....2)

- 2  -

purchased extended warranty for 3 years in addition to the ordinary warranty given by the manufacturer, after paying Rs.5,000/-.  A few days after purchase, both front tyres of the car had begun to show uneven wear. Right side front tyre showed wear and tear in the inside portion and left one on its outer edge.  Vehicle had run only 16000 kms.  When this was brought to the notice of opposite parties, all the 4 tyres were changed at the cost of one.  However, same wear and tear was caused to tyres when the car had run 20000 kms after change.  Thereafter all the 4 tyres were again changed for which opposite parties are charged Rs.10000/-.  Apart from this, battery of the car had exploded  while the car was running.  Since there is 4 year warranty for the battery, it was replaced by opposite parties free of cost, in 2017 December.  Uneven wear and tear of the tyres were again noticed.  Climate control of the vehicle was malfunctioning as there was leakage of water into the cabin from the climate control unit.  Complainant had entrusted the vehicle for necessary repairs with the opposite parties.  They had charged Rs.7,967/- for repairs and had return the vehicle after purportedly effecting repairs.  Complainant had found that inbuilt stereo of the car was removed.  Its steering was replaced with another one and there was no sufficient cooling for air conditioner unit.  In fact, climate control unit of the vehicle was changed with an AC unit.  Upon enquiry made by complainant with similar service centres, complainant had come to know that it was a common practice for workshop personnel to pilfer quality accessories from cars entrusted for maintenance or repairs and replacing them with cheap and inferior ones.  Present steering has an oval shape and is of more thickness than ordinary ones, due to which vehicle could not be steered comfortably.  Air conditioner unit which is the replaced one, does not provide sufficient cooling.  There is no comfort of power steering.  Tyres purchased after expending Rs.10,000/- have become useless due to uneven wear and tear.  Though the vehicle had run only 80,000/- kms till date, tyres have been changed thrice.  Besides a bolt of the wheel cup has been changed with inferior one.  Opposite parties have removed original parts under the guise of repair of the vehicle and replaced them with cheep and inferior quality parts.  Defect of uneven wear and tear of tyres still exists.  This is a manufacturing defect.  Complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced with one which does not have manufacturing defect and for costs of the parts pilfered from his vehicle.  He submits that the vehicle has mechanical defect and there is service deficiency from the side of opposite parties.  He prays for a direction against opposite parties to replace the car with one having no manufacturing defects.  He also seeks return of original parts pilfered from the vehicle while it was entrusted with opposite parties or in the alternate for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.  Complainant further seeks Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

2.  Complaint was admitted and upon notice, both opposite parties have entered appearance and filed separate written versions.  Contentions advanced by 1^st opposite party in its written version are briefly narrated here under :

                                                                                                    (cont....3)

• 3  -

According to 1^st opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  It is admitted that complainant had purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party.  However, 1^st opposite party had replaced all 4 tyres of the vehicle when it had covered only 16653 kms, free of cost, on 9.11.2016.  Again on 27.10.2017, all the 4 tyres were replaced, when the vehicle had covered 54,106 kms, upon support by manufacturer.  Inspection carried out of the vehicle revealed that there was unusual wear and tear as the complainant was primarily driving the car through hilly area, like Nellappara where he resides.  Wear and tear of a particular part depends on many facts including terrain in which the vehicle is used.  Besides 1^st opposite party has been proactive in addressing complaints of complainant including those regarding bulging of battery which was replaced by opposite party.  It is incorrect to say that opposite party removed original parts of the vehicle and replaced them with those of inferior quality.  It is incorrect to say that the vehicle had exhibited abnormal wear and tear of tyres.  Opposite party has duly addressed the grievances of complainant regarding wear and tear of tyres.  Contentions addressed otherwise are incorrect.  Car battery had not exploded or burst while the vehicle was running.  There was only bulging of battery.  It was replaced by opposite party free of cost.  Complainant had not impleaded the battery manufacturer or tyre manufacturer with regard to the defects of both.  It is incorrect to say that opposite parties had replaced inbuilt stereo, AC unit and steering wheel of car when it was entrusted with opposite party for service, in December, 2017.  With regard to manufacturing defect alleged, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove these allegations with assistance of an expert.  Opposite party suspects that complainant had compared his vehicle with another model Ford Figo Titanium which had more accessories than the one supplied with the model purchased by complainant.  It is incorrect to say that the vehicle does not given driving comfort.  Wear and tear of tyres is not due to any manufacturing defect.  Allegations that opposite party had failed to repair the vehicle are incorrect.  Multiple repairs of the vehicle cannot be equated with manufacturing defect as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  There is no defect in the vehicle which cannot be repaired and averments to the contrary are false.  Complainant has not made out a prima facie case against opposite party.  Therefore complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. 2^nd opposite party had filed a detailed written version containing quotes from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which we are not extracting here, for the sake of brevity.  Pleadings contained in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party are briefly reproduced hereunder :

 

According to 2^nd opposite party also, complaint is not maintainable upon law and facts and is to be dismissed as such.  Car has been extensively used by complainant for over 90359 kms as on 4.10.2018, from the date of purchase, which is 23.4.2016.  On an                                                                                                                   (cont....4)

• 4  -

average, it has run 3347 kms per month.  After having extensively used the car and after having availed service of opposite parties, complainant cannot reject the car for flimsy reasons.  Car was not been maintained by complainant as per maintenance requirements.  On most  occasions when the car had reported at work station of authorised dealer, some or other part was  found to be damaged or missing.  Even accidental repairs were carried out by authorised dealer on several occasions.  Technicians of authorised dealer have noticed that car was being rashly and negligently driven.  On further reporting, major and / minor   dents and damages  were found.  Complainant was driving the car in un-drivable conditions on regular basis as shock absorbers suspensions, engine front mount, muffler, exhaust pipe, silencer end assembly, link assembly joint ball etc. were repaired and / or replaced with new ones on regular basis.  Ordinarily,  suspension of the vehicle lasts for its life time.  It’s lifespan depends on driving conditions of the car and driving habits of the driver etc.  It is not possible for any vehicle with inherent manufacturing defect to last for 90000 kms.  This is proved by vehicle repair history of the car dated 17.10.2018.

 

Besides, complainant had purchased the car for promotion and expansion of his business, car was being used for commercial purposes.  There is not a single averment in the complaint to the effect that  car was intended for  personal use of complainant.  Vehicle repair history of car which discloses works undertaken indicates that the vehicle was commercially used. 

 

Complainant had misunderstood the warranty given by  manufacturer.  This warranty is only for repair or replacement of any defective part which may be due to faulty manufacture or use of faulty or inferior material within warranty period.  Warranty does not cover normal maintenance, service replacement of consumables and those components subject to normal wear and tear.  Uneven wear and tear was reported  first by complainant on 9.11.2016, when the car had covered 16653 kms.  When this was brought to the notice of 2^nd opposite party, which after first inspection, had raised the issue with the respective tyre manufacturer.  He had upon inspection found no defects in the tyres.  Yet in order to maximise customer satisfaction and experience, authorised dealer had replaced all 4 tyres with brand new ones.  A new tyre under ordinary condition would last for a distance  between 25000 to 50000 kms.  However, in case of complainant, car was being driven in undrivable and rough condition, extensively due to which suspension system of the car was damaged which had affected the tyres causing them to wear fast.

 

Complainant has not attributed any fault, any imperfection or shortcoming, faulty nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law by opposite party in its capacity as  employee of Ford India Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                                                          (cont....5)

 

• 5  -

Manager of regional office of Ford is neither necessary nor proper party to this case.  When a corporate is to be sued, it can be sued only as prescribed under law and not in any other manner.  Ford is having its independent identity and has to be sued as such.  Complaint filed as against 2^nd opposite party showing  it as represented by its employee is to be dismissed.

 

As far as relationship between Ford and its authorised dealer is concerned, it is on a principal to principal basis.  Liability will not occur, since ancillary service is upon authorised dealers and not upon answering opposite party or Ford.  Ford is liable only in case of manufacturing defect.  Complainant had miserably failed to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the car as there was no expert report to prove the same.  Allegations levelled by complainant cannot be taken as gospal truth with regard to manufacturing defect.  It is to be proved by means of creditable documentary evidence.  There is no such proof in the instance case.  It is again repeated in the written version that warranty application of the manufacturer is only to the extent of effecting repairs or replacing parts which are proved to be having manufacturing defect within the limits of warranty.  It is also alleged that the complaint involves several disputed issues of facts and law requiring detailed oral and documentary evidence.  Hence complaint cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings; that only ordinary Civil Court have jurisdiction to decide the complaint. 

 

No cause of action has accrued within the jurisdictional limit of this Forum.  2^nd opposite party has its office in Chennai.  1^st opposite party is admittedly  operating in Muvattupuzha which is also outside the local limit of jurisdiction of this Forum.  Complaint is to be dismissed on this ground alone.  Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  He has suppressed the facts that the vehicle was being driven against operating instructions given in the manual.  Complainant has not paid any attention to the suggested standard operational methods of car.  It was being run in a compromised condition.  Car has a history of repair service for accidental repairs on regular intervals.  It was once involved in a major accident and delivered to the  authorised dealer with requests for miscellaneous repairs, not covered under existing policies.  In other words, it was brought for accidental repairs and to make it  road worthy.  It was lastly reported on 4.10.2018 for repairs.  On that occasion, complainant had refused to give permission to replace / repair cracked, chipped and pitted wind shield which indicated that car was involved in a road accident.  It is incorrect to say that the car was maintained properly in terms of requirements given in car owner’s manual.  2^nd opposite party denies purchase of extended warranty as alleged by complainant by payment of Rs.5000/-.  It is false to say that tyres had started exhibiting uneven and irregular wear and tear within 2 months of purchase.  It is incorrect to say that complainant had maintained proper wheel alignment.  It is wrong to say that tyres had shown uneven wear and tear in inner side of right and outer side of left tyres.  It is                                                                                                                             (cont....6)

• 6  -

incorrect to say that the tyres had worn out completely when the car had run 16000 kms.  It is false to say that all the 4 tyres were changed free of cost.  It is further false to say that the tyres were replaced again when the car had run for a further distance of 20000 kms and that replacement was done on the cost of one tyre.  Quick tyre wear was exclusively associated with driving habits of complainant and the conditions in which the car is being driven.  On 6.12.2016, when the vehicle was brought for 20000 kms periodical maintenance service, covering 3449 kms in just 26 days, no such concern regarding tyre wear were raised by complainant.  At the time vehicle reported for service, it had its wheel nut of front right tyre missing, which was replaced by opposite parties.  On 23.1.2017, after the car had covered 24017 kms, it was brought with concern of noise from front suspension.  Upon inspection, front left side shock absorber was found to be damaged which was replaced under warranty.  On 13.3.2017, after covering 29939 kms, it was brought for scheduled periodical maintenance service which is to be done at 20222 kms.  At that time, water leak inside the cabin was reported.  Thorough inspection of car revealed that wiper lines, door bush etc were missing and muffler /silencer was found to be damaged due to external impact.  Damaged and missing parts were replaced with new ones in terms of warranty.  As passenger cabin was found to be extremely dirty, interior cleaning was carried out and body polish work was done at zero cost to complainant.  Car was handed over in complete road worthy condition.  On 4.5.2017, after clocking 35,942 kms, car was brought with concern of uneven wear and tear of tyres and play in gear shifting lever.  It is  pertinent to note that this concern was raised after clocking only 16289 km in less than 6 months from the date of last tyre replacement which was done on 9.11.2016.  Technicians had thoroughly inspected the car and not noticed anything in the car which may have caused uneven wear and tear of tyres.  However, tyres were replaced at no cost to complainant.  Wheel balancing and alignment was done in terms of warranty policy.  Sound in gear shifting lever was found owing to excessive pressure to gear transmission caused by aggressive gear changing.  Entire gear lever assembly was removed under warranty at zero cost to complainant.  It is clear that wear of tyre was owing to driving patterns and conditions.  This was not due to defect of vehicle.  It is false to say that battery of the car had exploded.  Opposite party denies the contentions that battery had 4 years warranty.  On23.2.2018, complainant had reported the car at work station of authorised dealer with concern of starting trouble and stereo volume.  Car was thoroughly examined by trained technicians of the authorised dealer.  They noticed cells in battery was damaged due to water loss.  Battery was changed with new one with terms of warranty policy in rectifying issue of starting trouble.  With regard to complaint of stereo volume, stereo was entrusted with M/s. Mount Electronics for necessary repair with prior permission of complainant.  Contentions that Rs.7,967/- charged for addressing concern of tyre wear, dripping of water and towards wheel alignment are false.  Further contentions that stereo of the car was removed, steering was changed and climate control unit was replaced with AC unit are also false.  Car had reported at the work station of authorised dealer on 19.12.2017                                                                                                                    (cont....7)

• 7  -

for 60000 kms scheduled periodical maintenance service.  Wheel alignment and wheel balancing, wheel rotation were carried out as part of periodical maintenance service.  Complainant had also reported trouble in FM operation of stereo.  Upon checking by technician, FM and stereo were found to be working correctly.  Complainant was billed for consumable parts for replacement in accordance with itemised bill which was given to complainant.  Car was handed over to complainant after completion of service in a road worthy condition. It is false to say that opposite party had taken car for repair and removed its original parts.  Contentions that wear and tear of tyres is still persisting and that opposite party had committed serious lapse while repairing the car are incorrect.  Complainant’s claim that he is entitled to get back removed original parts is not well founded.  Complainant  had filed false, frivolous and vexatious complaint.  He is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Same is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of opposite party.

 

4. After giving sufficient opportunity for steps, case was posted for evidence.  On the side of complainant, he himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked along with Ext.C1 commission report.  On the side of 1^st opposite party, its service manager was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 series 2 in numbers to Ext.R5 were proved by him.  Thereafter Exts.R6 to R10 were marked without formal proof from the side of 2^nd opposite party.  Evidence was thereafter closed and both sides were heard.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether the car has any manufacturing defect ?

3)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

4)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

5)  Final order and costs ?

 

5. Point No.1 :

 

          Both opposite parties have challenged inherent jurisdiction of this Forum along with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.  Specific contentions are addressed with regard to lack of both inherent and territorial in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party.  Primary objection taken in the written version is that, though manufacturing defect is alleged, there is no proof, like a report of expert to substantiate these contentions.  2^nd objection taken is that the car was being put to commercial use and hence complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  Reliance is seen placed upon a decision of Apex Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another (AIR 2006 SC 1586).  It is further contended that liability of manufacturer as per warranty is limited to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective and not any more.  In this aspect, reliance is placed upon Ext.P3, which is owner’s manual produced by complainant                                                                                                                     (cont.....8)

• 8  -

himself containing extract of terms of warranty.  It is also contended that standard operating procedure outlined in the manual were not adhered to by complainant and hence warranty is not applicable either.  2^nd opposite party has again contended that complainant had concealed the factum of commercial use of vehicle, driving the vehicle in un-drivable conditions and driving negligently which would  disentitle him for claiming warranty and in this respect decision of Punjab State Commission in the case of

Amtrak Sing Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(1994) CPR 390] is relied upon.  Reliance is also placed upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines  [(2000) 1 Company Law Journal 1] and it is contended that in case of bonafide acts of service provider, despite there being any short comings, he cannot be made liable for deficiency in service.  In so far as 1^st opposite party is concerned, he had stuck to bare contention that complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts and further that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.

 

          With regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction, 2^nd opposite party has specifically contended that it has its office in Chennai and in so far as 1^st opposite party is concerned, the branch is situated in Muvattupuzha which is in Ernakulam District.  There is nothing in the complaint to show that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Forum.  On these premises, opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

          We shall revert to the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction later.  Firstly, we will answer contentions with regard to inherent jurisdiction as posed by opposite parties.  First contention addressed is that the vehicle is admittedly used for commercial purposes, as born out from Exts.R1 to R5 service records.  Since it has covered an extensive distance of more than 90000 kms, during a short span of 2 years after purchase in 2016, complainant cannot claim any relief with regard to the car owing to its alleged shortcomings and for deficiency in service under the Act.  These contentions are not at all meritorious.  It is mentioned in the complaint that complainant is a small type contractor who is doing such business for earning his livelihood exclusively.  That being so, we do not think that use of car for the purpose of his vocation can be considered as use for commercial purpose.   That  apart, opposite parties have no case that complainant has any other vehicle for his personal use.  Going by the evidence tendered, the car is being used by complainant in connection with contract work, for journey to and fro and also for his personal needs.  Hence, it cannot be said that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act.  With regard to further pleas that in the absence of proof with regard to manufacturing defect alleged or deficiency in service as averred in the complaint, same is to be considered as not maintainable, these pleas do not appear to us as forceful or sufficient to warrant a rejection of the complaint as such.  Decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra and that of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission do                                                                                                                (cont....9)

• 9  -

not warrant  such rejection owing to lack of proof.  The question whether allegation pertaining to manufacturing defect and deficiency in service are supported by any evidence or not can be answered only during trial and therefore we do not think that there is any lack of inherent jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and try the same before this Forum.  We also notice that contentions were addressed with regard to the alleged extensive and negligent use of the vehicle against operating manual of the vehicle.  These facts were put to PW1 during cross examination and have been denied by him too.  The question whether defects noticed in the vehicle when it was brought for service and repairs as evidenced by Exts.R1 to R10,  would amount to proof with regard to negligent user can be considered later, after considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction, if necessary. 

 

          Coming to the question of territorial jurisdiction as pointed out by opposite parties, 1^st opposite party branch is in Muvattupuzha which is within the local limit of Ernakulam District.  2^nd opposite party is admittedly having its office in Chennai which is in Tamil Nadu.  !st opposite party branch of Kerala Cars Pvt Ltd. is not functioning within the local limits of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It was contended by learned counsel for complainant that the vehicle is plied by complainant within the limits of this Forum.  He is residing in Karimkunnam in Thodupuzha.  That apart, part of consideration towards price of the car was availed as loan from Karimkunnam branch of Kerala Gramin Bank.  Therefore it is to be presumed that part of cause of action arisen within the local limit of this Forum.  These contentions are not at all convincing.  Vehicle was purchased from Muvattupuzha branch of Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd. which is in Muvattupuzha.  Car being a movable property, its sale will be complete only when possession of the same is handed over to the purchaser.  It is evident from the pleadings and evidence tendered, that the car was delivered upon payment of consideration, to the complainant from Muvattupuzha branch of Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd.  Consideration also, in all probabilities was paid or remitted in favour of Muvattupuzha branch.  The fact that complainant had, after purchase of the vehicle, plied within the jurisdiction of this Forum cannot be considered as part of cause action with regard to filing of this complaint.  Complainant is free to ply his car anywhere in India,  as he pleases after purchasing it, for he is its owner.  This will not imply that he can file a case of this nature before any Forum within whose local limit he had driven the car.  So also, the fact that he had taken a loan from a bank at Karimkunnam for purchasing the car will also not constitute a portion of cause of action with regard to the complaint herein.  As observed earlier, he has a wide choice of choosing any bank which offers attractive terms for effecting purchase.  He plies his car and does banking transactions as per his own choice.  Such acts done within or outside the local limits of this Forum will not constitute a cause of action with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Car was delivered from Muvattupuzha branch which was being serviced there regularly.  Under these                                                                                                                           (cont.....10)

• 10  -

circumstances, we hold that no part of cause of transaction has arisen within the local limit of this Forum.  Complaint ought to have been filed before the Forum within whose local limit opposite parties are working for gain or where a portion of cause of action has arisen as such. 2^nd opposite party has advanced a contention that there is no proper impleadment of M/s. Ford India Ltd. According to 2^nd opposite party, manager of regional office of Ford India Ltd. has no authority to represent the company. Despite taking of such a specific contention, complainant has not taken any steps to implead Ford India Ltd. company in accordance with law.  As rightly contended by 2^nd opposite party, manager of its regional or any other office is not competent to represent the company as such, without authorization.  We also notice that the dealer is Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd (Kairali Ford) whose manager of Muvattupuzha branch is arrayed as 1^st opposite party.  This is also highly improper.  1^st opposite party is admittedly private limited company.  It cannot be represented by its branch manager.  As per law, either the managing director or company secretary ought to have been arrayed as persons competent to represent both the dealer and manufacturing company respectively.  Complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint either. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

6.  Point Nos.2 to 4 are considered together for the sake of convenience :

 

          We have gone through the pleadings and evidence tendered in depth. Tyres were not inspected/checked for quality to rule out manufacturing defect of tyres or inferior quality of rubber. With  regard to manufacturing defect, complainant only claims that there was unusual or rather uneven wear and tear of both front tyres.  This is noted by the Commissioner also as it is evidenced from Ext.C1.  However, one cannot deny the fact that such uneven wear and tear could be owing to the manner in which the vehicle was driven and the terrain in which it was plied.  We notice that there is no report by an automobile engineer with regard to front assembly of car which includes steering assembly and front  suspension system of the vehicle.  There was no inspection of the front chassis portion connected to the front end; unless there is a report by an expert having requisite qualification with regard to the aforesaid parts of the vehicle, it cannot be concluded that unusual wear and tear of the vehicle in front tyres is due to manufacturing defect or not.

 

          Complainant has also claimed that original parts of the vehicle were replaced with parts of inferior quality.  Stereo system was switched with an inferior one.  Similarly front wheel nut was also exchanged with one of inferior quality.  Complaint does not specify the date on which these events have taken place.  Opposite parties have however denied of having switched parts or stereo.  RW1’s evidence was to the effect that there were complaints addressed by complainant with regard to sound quality of stereo and FM reception.  These complaints were attended to and there was replacement of the                                                                                                               (cont....11)

• 11  -

stereo system with the concurrence to complainant.  However, we also notice that despite application from the side of complainant for  production of job cards which was allowed by this Commission, 1^st opposite party has not produced original job cards. We have already found that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.  The further question whether the vehicle has any manufacturing defect or whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties cannot be considered on merits in view of our findings of Point No.1 with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction.  Point Nos.2 to 4 are answered accordingly. 

 

7.  Point No.5 :

 

          In the result, the only order which can be passed at present is that of  return of complaint.  Accordingly, complaint is ordered to be returned to complainant for presentation before proper Forum, either at Ernakulam or Chennai.

 

                      Pronounced by this Commission on this the   15^th   day of May, 2023

 

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                      Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

      Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR