Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/126/2015

M/s.Prema Bright - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s.Chennai Ford - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Narayanan and Others

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  07.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 07^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.126/2015

 

 

Mrs.Prema Bright,

2, 2^nd Street,

Chellaperumal Nagar,

Sriperumbadur,

Kancheepuram Dt – 602 105.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Chennai Ford,

423, Poonamallee High Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

 

2. President & Managing Director,

Ford India (P) Ltd.,                                      (Impleaded as 2^nd opposite party

Ford Plant & Corporate Office,                             as per order in C.M.P. 25/2016

SP Koil Post,                                                 dated 27.06.2016)

Chengalpet – 608 204.

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 25.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.K.S.Narayanan, N.Bhaskaran &

                                                                    G.Kalaivani

 

Counsel for  1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s. M.Swaminathan, S.Radha Devi,

                                                                   B.R.Sankaranarayanan, S.Ramamurthy    

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                        : M/s.R.Senthil Kumar, Chethan Sagar, &

                                                                     B.Kishore of Dua Associates

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the expenses of Rs.1,55,680/- towards repairs charges and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant/Consumer purchased a Ford Sedan Fiesta Classic 1.4 DCL XI bearing vehicle serial No.FE111200458, Engine No. BU11319  on 28.11.2011 from the 1^st opposite party on payment of full consideration. The said car was registered by transport authority bearing Regn.No.TN 22CC 3853. The Car was sparingly used by her and that it had not even run or exceeded even the mileage of 42000 km after its purchase till January 2014. She gave the car for maintenance with the 1^st opposite party’s service station at Poonamallee, Chennai on 19.02.2013 as she had planned to go to Nagercoil by car. The car was serviced on 21.02.2014. on 26.02.2014 she left with her husband on wheel to Nagercoil and when the car crossed at Valliyur near Nagercoil, the car developed a problem as the engine made a huge noise with oil stain splashed over and the car thus came to a halt as engine obviously stuck due to its faulty and defective condition and the engine failed to function thereafter. The complainant contacted the Respondent and on whose advises; she approached their authorized local dealer and agent M/s. AKSHAYA FORD at Tirunelveli by towing the car at her cost from Valliyur to Tirunelveli, at a distance of about 50 km and handed over the car to the said service agent/dealer on 26.02.2014. The sudden halt of the running engine ceasing to function causing huge noise with oil splash over it, for a new car which has done only 42000 km and not even finished its warranty coverage of running one lakh km or of its extended warranty period, was because of the defective manufacturing condition of the engine. The opposite party represented by its customer Relation section at Chennai on 04.03.2014 assured necessary assistance to complainant. On 06.03.2014 the complainant by email to 1^st opposite party required details of faulty condition to the car and steps for rectification to which on the same date 1^st opposite party replied that it would revert back with details. Thereafter to successive e-mail correspondence sent by complainant to the 1^st opposite party, the response finally  was shocking as the 1^st opposite party stated that the failure of engine was due to external impact which was immediately repudiated by the complainant by his mail. The complainant states neither the opposite party nor its dealer-agent at Tirunelveli parted with information and the cause for the failure of engine,  for such mishap that took place immediately after the service was over by its own dealer/agent at Madras. The complainant further states that the vehicle was stationed at dealer’s workshop at Tirunelveli between 26/27.02.2014 and 31.05.2014 without attending to its service and engine replacement despite several reminders to them. The said dealer/agent without furnishing any of the details of faulty condition and replaced parts sought for but only sent the estimation cost of repair at Rs.1,56,000/- and on payment of Rs.1,55,680/- on 31.05.2014 delivery of vehicle was made on 11.06.2014. The complainant states that the 2^nd opposite party’s only as a reputed manufacturer of vehicle failed in its obligation despite the extended warranty condition in force to replace the engine part. The sale of vehicle with its latent defect in vehicle and the deficiency in service besides inordinate delay and denial to comply with the lawful demand amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service causing great loss and injury to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service to replace the defective engine and also to refund the expenses of Rs.1,55,680/- towards repairs charges and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  ^1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased Ford Fiesta classic car bearing Registration No.TN-22 CC -3853 on 25.11.2011. The opposite party states that they had issued the Contract Certificate for extended warranty to the said vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions which were clearly mentioned in the same. Further vehicle warrant is not applicable to the complainant because services were not done as per schedule with dealership. Further Engine Oil was replaced locally be the complainant. The complainant had left the said vehicle to the opposite party on 18.02.2014 for general check up. The opposite party states that during the general check up in the opposite party’s workshop there was no damage to the engine sump as well as no oil leakage. Moreover after General Service of the said vehicle form the opposite party, the complainant had driven from Chennai nearly 1000 km to reach Valliyur. Further if at all there is problem in the engine of the said car after general check up the said car would not have moved even 10 to 20 kms from the workshop. The opposite party states that the driver drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby hit the oil Sump elsewhere. The Oil Sump which is locate near the under Chassis of the  vehicle and due to damage of the oil sump there was leakage from the Oil Sump and all the engine oil was drained. Further the complainant drove the said vehicle without engine oil which in turn resulted in engine cease. The vehicle was reported at Akshaya Ford, Thirunelveli with Sump damage and which resulted in oil leakage & starvation that lead to consequential damage to the engine. The damage to the engine was due to external force and negligence of the complainant not due to any manufacturing defect. Moreover the manufacturer Ford India Limited had investigated the problem of the complainant with the service centres and had come to the conclusion that the nature of failure was purely due to an external impact on the engine oil sump thus resulting in oil starvation which leads to the consequential damage to the engine and the same could not be related to any manufacturing defect. The same had been communicated to the complainant by Ford India Limited (Manufacturer) through mail. The claim of the complainant under various heads such as Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.1,55,680/- for repair charges, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigations expenses are unjust and exorbitant and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.   

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  ^2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant purchased the Ford Car from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant left his car M/s. AKSHAYA FORD at Tirunelveli for sudden repair. After repair by the said service centre the complainant paid repair charges of Rs.1,55,680/- and took delivery of the vehicle. The said service centre M/s. AKSHAYA FORD not arrayed as a party and who is a necessary party to this complaint.

          4. Due to the negligent on the part of the complaint damaging the engine oil sump in the under body of the vehicle and continued to drive the vehicle in the damaged condition without sufficient engine oil, eventually causing engine repair on 27.07.2014. Therefore, the complainant allegation that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect is false and baseless.

          5. The terms and conditions of the warranty are very clear that the external damage is not covered under the warranty. The other averments made in the complaint are denied. The complainant has not produced any document to show that she ever tested the vehicle or found that vehicle was defect. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the defect alleged by her and hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

           It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Ford Sedan Fiesta  Classic 1.4 DCL XI bearing Regn.No.TN 22CC 3853 from the 1^st opposite party/dealer under Ex.A1 invoice and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said car and Ex.A3 is the extended warranty certificate and the complainant wanted to go to Nagercoil  by his car, she left the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party’s  service station on 19.02.2013 and after service the car was delivered to her on 21.02.2014 and the complainant and her husband left for Nagercoil from Chennai on 26.02.2014 and when he crossed  Valliyur near Nagercoil the car developed a problem and after stopping the car the complainant contacted the opposite parties and after towing the car at her cost from Valliyur to Tirunelveli and left the car M/s. AKSHAYA FORD/Service centre at Tirunelveli for service.

          8. The complainant would contend  that the 1^st opposite party issued Ex.A2 report card dated 19.02.2014 and noted the tyre noise and front suspension noise in the report card and on crossing Valliyur a huge noise came from engine with oil stain splashed over and hence he immediately stopped the car and thereafter he had handed over the vehicle to the authorized service centre at Thirunelveli and the huge noise clearly proves that the engine is having manufacturing defect and therefore the opposite parties have sold defective vehicle to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service.

          9. The opposite parties would contend that the complainant serviced his vehicle at M/s. AKSHAYA FORD at Thirunelveli and the said service centre is a necessary party to this complaint and further the vehicle was purchased in the year 2011 and in the year 2014, it covered more than 42,000 kms and further due to negligent driving the oil-sump damaged and the complainant without stopping the vehicle drove further and hence the oil came out and the lubricants  not supplied to the engine and therefore there is no manufacturing  defect in the vehicle and further after repair the complainant using the vehicle and there is no expert evidence is available that the engine is having manufacturing defect and therefore the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

10. M/s. AKSHAYA FORD is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer. The manufacturer very well having control over their service centers and therefore M/s. AKSHAYA FORD has not been added a party to this complaint does not invalidate the complaint on that sole ground.

11. The complainant serviced the vehicle and paid a sum of Rs.1,55,680/- and took delivery of the vehicle at the service centre Thiruneveli  on 11.06.2014. This complaint filed on 07.08.2015 nearly after one year of the repair done at Thirunelveli. It is not the case of the complainant that during the interregnum period of one year the complainant has experienced the very same defect in the engine. The opposite parties would contend that due to negligent driving the oil sump was damaged and oil came out, no lubricant was supplied to the engine and then only the engine got ceased. To deny these aspects the complainant has not examined any expert to show that the oil sump was not damaged further after took delivery at Thirunelveli the same problem persisted in the engine has not been proved by the complainant by examining the expert. It is settled law that to prove manufacturing defect in the engine, the expert evidence is must. Admittedly , the complainant has not examined any expert evidence to prove that the engine is having manufacturing defect and therefore  we hold that the complainant has not proved that the engine is having manufacturing defect and thereby we hold that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th day of February 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 25.11.2011                   Vehicle purchase Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 19.02.2014                   Report card by service Agency

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Extended warranty Certificate

Ex.A4 dated 02.03.2014                   Mail to Respondent

Ex.A5 dated 03.03.2014                   Report of the incident copy

Ex.A6 dated 04.03.2014                   Reply by opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 05.03.2014                   complaint to respondent

Ex.A8 dated 06.03.2014                   Email  by respondent

Ex.A9 dated 08.03.2014                   Petitioner mail respondent

Ex.A10 dated 08.03.2014                 Petitioner mail to dealer to Tirunelveli

Ex.A11 dated 10.03.2014                 Email letter by respondent

Ex.A12 dated 13.03.2014                 Email from opposite party

Ex.A13 dated NIL                             Estimation detail from dealer

Ex.A14 dated 14.03.2014                 Email reminder to dealer

Ex.A15 dated 27.03.2014                 Mail by petitioner

Ex.A16 dated 31.05.2014                 Payment made by petitioner

Ex.A17 dated 02.07.2014                 Legal notice by petitioner

Ex.A18 dated 18.07.2014                 Reply by opposite party        

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 13.03.2014	Copy of the vehicle repair history provided by the opposite party No.1
Ex.B2 dated 29.09.2016	Copy of the vehicle repair history provided by M/s. Cauvery Motors Private Limited (Akshaya Ford)
Ex.B3 dated NIL	Copy of the repair order dated 18.02.2014 issued by the opposite party No.2 and duly signed by the complainant
Ex.B4 dated NIL	Copy of the repair order dated 27.02.2014 issued by M/s. Cauvery Motors Private Limited (Akshaya Ford) and duly signed by the complainant
Ex.B5 dated NIL	Copy of the technical report issued by M/s. Cauvery Motors Private Limited (Akshaya Ford) to the opposite party No.2 along with enclosures.
Ex.B6 dated 10.03.2014	Copy of the email dated 10.03.2014 issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant
Ex.B7 dated NIL	Copy of the warranty terms and conditions of the vehicle
Ex.B8 dated 12.09.2013	Copy of the Board Resolution dated 12.09.2013 authorizing Mr.Tapos Kumar Moitra
Ex.B9  dated 10.02.2016	Certified copy of Board Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Ford India Private Limited at their meeting held on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1.00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT