Date of Filing: 17.04.2009<br /> Date of Order: 22.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 22ND DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 892 OF 2009<br /> <br /> M/s. Sree Gokulam Chits &<br /> Finance Co., (P) Ltd.,<br /> No.295, 1st Floor, 22nd Cross,<br /> 10th Main, Jayanagar 3rd Block,<br /> Bangalore-11.<br /> Rep. by its GPA Holder & <br /> Branch Manager, Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1) The Manager,<br /> Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Section,<br /> Heritage Home, Jaglapa Park,<br /> Mrs. Ramabhai Ambedkar Road,<br /> Pune-411001.<br /> <br /> 2) The Manager,<br /> India Garage,<br /> Dealers of Mahindra Vehicles,<br /> No.63, St.Marks Road,<br /> Bangalore-1. Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant company purchased vehicle make Mahindra Bolero from the opposite party No.2 authorised dealer of the opposite party No.1 on 7-5-2008 for Rs.4,78,719/-. After purchase of vehicle, there arose a problem in the vehicle, the vehicle used to pull left side while driving and Engine used to get heated within a short time. The problem was reputed to opposite party No.2. The complainant left the vehicle for checkup at the service center on 17-5-2008 after 10 days from the date of taking delivery of the vehicle. Even after checkup the problems continued. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to get vehicle exchanged. The opposite party No.2 did not respond. Notice was sent to the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not show any interest in rectifying the manufacturing defect. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant prayed the opposite parties be directed to exchange the vehicle and to pay compensation. <br /> 2. The opposite party No.1&2 have filed defense version, stating that the complaint is groundless and misconceived, the complaint is not maintainable. There is no defect in the vehicle. The complainant has to be blamed for not entrusting the vehicle for regular inspection and rectification. Non production of the vehicle for services implies that there is no defect or problem in the vehicle. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 has duly attended the problem. The vehicle was deliver to the customer with satisfaction. On 18-11-2008 after second service the vehicle was delivering to the complainant to the best satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle was never reported for 3rd & 4th free services as required under the warranty. On 22-4-2009 the vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for certain accidental repairs after attending the same the vehicle was deliver to the complainant on 15-5-2009 to the best satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant even fails to avail free services. Therefore, the opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of vehicle?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted fact the complainant has purchased subject vehicle from the opposite party No.2 on 7-5-2008. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was left for 1st free service with the opposite party No.2 for general check up and HPL service and other services. The vehicle was left for 2nd service also with the opposite party No.2 and the vehicle was subjected to 4 wheel alignment service also on 1-8-2008 and result of alignment is also produced. The 2nd free service also carried out. In the 2nd free service sheet the complainant has not given complaint about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. It has been stated that to carry out free service and interior cleaning only. On 10-11-2008, the vehicle was left for the 2nd service, Rs.600/- was collected from the complainant towards interior cleaning. 2nd service was done free. In the 2nd service nothing is said about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle by the complainant. If at all there are manufacturing defect like pulling vehicle left side and vehicle use to get heated. The complainant definitely could have stated these facts at the time of 2nd service. No body prevented the complainant to mention the manufacturing defect of the vehicle at the time of leaving the vehicle for 2nd service. As per the warranty the ops have undertaken 4 free services but, the complainant has not left the vehicle to the service center for 3rd & 4th free service. The complainant has not availed the services offered by the company. The purchaser is entitled to 4 free services by any service centers. But, admittedly the complainant in this case has availed only 2 free services. The vehicle unfortunately met with an accident after filing of this complaint as per the case of the opposite parties. The vehicle left with service center and the opposite parties has done service to the vehicle by putting some spare parts. Total amount of Rs.26,964/- was the cost of service done on 15-5-2009 after filing the complaint. By looking into the spare parts list produced and shown in Tax Invoice it is clear that the vehicle had met with some accident and therefore some spare parts were changed and the op collected labour charges also. At that time also there was no complaint about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Merely stating that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect without there being any expert evidence shall not be accepted. The allegation of manufacturing defect is not based on any expert evidence either oral or documentary. The complainant has not taken any steps for inspection of the vehicle by the expert in the subject. Therefore, without there being any legal evidence it is very difficult to come to conclusion that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The learned advocate for op relied upon a decision of Madhya Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in HMT Ltd. Vs Smt. Jubeda Bee I (2000) CPJ 54 where in it has been held as under: <br /> “(i) Consumer protection Act, 1986 Section 15-Appeal-Section 2(1)(f)-Manufacturing Defect-Expert Evidence-Tractor-Purchased-Complaint filed alleging defects-Allowed by District Forum-Appeal-No expert evidence adduced –Manufacturing defect not established.<br /> <br /> Held: Perusal of the record and impugned order of the District Forum reveals that appellant’s averment that finding of District forum about manufacturing defect is not based on any testimony written or oral of any expert in the field is correct. This Commission and National Commission have taken a consistent view that any technical defect has to be proved by testimony of an expert in the field. It is also well settled law that no order of replacement of vehicle or refund of price can be made except in the case where the manufacturing defect has been established. In the present case the District Forum has relied solely on the letter dated 7-8-1995 of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation. This letter also speaks of “the Tractor appearing to be old” and also some minor defects. Firstly such a letter can not by any stretch of imagination be termed as opinion of an expert. An expert opinion is expected to give technical details and the reason why that expert concluded that the defects were manufacturing defects. We are of the opinion that the letter dated 7-9-1995 referred to above is not an expert opinion. Record also reveals that there is no other evidence to substantiate the allegations of manufacturing defect and a claim for replacement of refund of prices. Our close scrutiny failed to provide any reason that could persuade us to agree with the view of District Forum.”<br /> The above ruling is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The question of replacement of vehicle does not arise. Since the complainant has failed to establish and prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The question of granting compensation also does not arise. However, the opposite parties shall give another 2 free services as per the warranty and if any minor defects and problems is found in the vehicle, the ops shall have to attend the same and rectify the defects. The opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of vehicle should see that customers are not harassed. The customer satisfaction is the most important thing in the age of competition. The opposite parties should see that no complaints are received in respect of quality of the vehicles released to market. If any defect is found in the vehicles the good name of the company will be spoiled. Thereby, it will definitely effect the reputation of the company. Therefore, in this case the opposite parties shall see that the vehicle is thoroughly checked up by the experts and technicians / engineers and if any defect is found it should be rectified so that the complainant shall feel satisfied with the quality of the vehicle and service of the opposite parties. The dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant leaving the vehicle for another 2 free services with the opposite party and the opposite party shall look into the problem faced by the complainant and rectify the minor defects. With this observation, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />