By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:-

          This Consumer Complaint is filed alleging the Complainant purchased a commercial vehicle with  modal name  “Super Carry” through the 1^st  Opposite Party who is the authorized dealer of the  4^th  Opposite Party on 25.10.2019.  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Manager (Services) of the 1^st  Opposite Party,   3^rd  Opposite Party is the Regional office of the manufacturer company and 4^th Opposite Party is the Head office of the manufacturer Company.  It is alleged in the complaint  that  when the Complainant approached the 1^st  Opposite Party for purchasing  a Commercial vehicle,  the  Sales Manager of the Opposite Party suggested the model name  “Super Carry” which costs  about Rs.4,17,848/-. They  have   arranged financial assistance for Rs.3,75,000/-   through Magma Fincorp Ltd.,  with repayment schedule of  59 instalments of Rs.8,922/-  as EMI.  Down payment of Rs.42,848/-  was paid by the Complainant.  At the  time of purchase,  it was promised by the Opposite party  that there are three free company services and warranty for a period of 2 years or for 70000 km  whichever is earlier.  The vehicle having  chasis No.MA3FZBHIT00155189  and Engine No.E08AN1060289  was registered on 15.11.2019 with registration No.KL 12M 9665.   Complainant states that the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant for  his livelihood.  Periodic services of the vehicle were done  by the Complainant at the  authorized  service centre.  After using the vehicle for about 15000 kms   Complainant found engine oil leakage and at the time of 3^rd  service,   2^nd  Opposite Party was informed about the same.  Complainant was made to believe that the said  issue was sorted after replacing  20 items as per  the service bill and the vehicle  was returned on 29.03.2021.  Complainant paid Rs.3,611/-  at the  time  of 3^rd   service.  But on 30.07.2021,  the vehicle had broken down  and was taken  to the service centre,  which was returned only on 05.08.2021 later since the same complaint of  oil leakage was detected,  the vehicle was taken to  2^nd  Opposite Party on 05.10.2021 and they charged Rs.2,385/- at that time.    Even thereafter,  the vehicle was taken to  the 2^nd  Opposite party with the very same complaint but the Complainant felt that they are intentionally delaying the work keeping the vehicle to cover the warranty period.  The Complainant suffered  a lot due  to the continuous break down of the vehicle  and hence  filed this  complaint alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally  responsible  and liable for the  reliefs and compensation claimed  by the Complainant.

          2.  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties filed version stating that the Complainant is not  a consumer and the vehicle is purchased  for commercial purpose and   not for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  According to 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties,  the Complainant himself  selected the model “Super Carry”.  The vehicle  model  and the financial  assistance etc were made  as per the intention of the purchaser.  1^st  Opposite party assisted only as demanded by the Complainant.  Vehicle is having  manufacturer’s  warranty for a period of 2 years or upto  70000 km. whichever is the earliest.  The vehicle is having three free company services.  It is evident from the records of  2^nd  Opposite Party that the  periodic services were done from the authorized  service centre.  The Complainant  raised the complaint of engine leakage only on 27.02.2021 when  reached 16500 km reading.  On checking,  radiator problem was found the required parts were replaced.  Charging of Rs.3,611/-   at the time of 3^rd  service is admitted .  The oil leakage issued had been resolved only under warranty.  On 30.07.2021,  again the  vehicle  was taken to 2^nd  Opposite Party with Complaint  of low pick up and oil leakage.  But 3^rd  Opposite Party has observed low pick up issue on all commercial super carry diesel vehicles.  Since  there was a  circular to replace the required  part for curing the issue,  the same has applied to the Complainant’s vehicle also after waiving the labour charges and the vehicle was delivered on 05.08.2021.  But again the  Complainant approached  2^nd  Opposite Party with the same complaint on 05.10.2021 and the oil  pan chamber and break pad were replaced.  Again on 21.10.2021  the vehicle was taken to  2^nd  Opposite Party alleging  the same issue.  The impression of the technician after examining the vehicle   was that the issue might be  on oil pan fix, and the same was reported to  Maruti.  As  the reply getting delayed and warranty about to be  expired on 25.10.2021,  works Manager of 2^nd  Opposite Party had taken the observation of Maruti through  telephone and updated that oil pan fixing  gum need to be of high quality and work carried out accordingly  under warranty and vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 17.11.2021.  Intentional  delay and  payment of huge service cost etc are denied by the Opposite Parties.  Opposite Parties never cheated or misbehaved to the Complainant.  Since  the vehicle was in good running condition without any complaints,  Opposite Parties are not at all liable for the reliefs claimed in the complaint.  No deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant  vehicle has no manufacturing defect.  Repair works for the oil leakage issue was done under warranty and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

3.  3^rd and 4^th  Opposite Party filed version.  In their version  they have stated that vehicle was purchased on 25.10.2019,  the  complaint  is barred   by limitation.  The Complainant is not a consumer.  The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.   3^rd and 4^th  Opposite Parties are responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period.  As per  warranty   clause necessary   repair were carried under warranty  and nothing was charged from the Complainant   without considering  the warranty period  other necessary repairs were also done.  As per warranty policy Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed.

4. The  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3  were marked.  From the side of Opposite Parties the work  Manager of 2^nd  Opposite Party  was examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 was marked.

5. The following question are coming up for consideration:-

1.  Whether the Complainant has sustained  to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the  Opposite Party?
2. Whether  Complainant is  entitled to get any compensation due to the deficiency of service  from the side of the  Opposite Party and if so,  the quantum of  compensation?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to cost of the proceedings?

6. The commission considered  the matter in detail. The case of the Complainant is that the  inconveniences were caused due to the manufacturing  defect of the vehicle purchased.  Even though  with the complaint  of oil leakage, he produced the vehicle  before the authorized workshop,  the same could not be cured by the Opposite Parties.  During cross examination of the Complainant  nothing  was brought out by the Opposite Parties that no complaint of oil leakage was there, after the services done as per warranty.  According to the Complainant he informed the  complaint of oil leakage from the 3^rd  service ie at the time when the same was noted by the Complainant which was not denied by the Opposite Parties.  Online bills are also produced to prove that the Opposite Parties were charged amount   during the warranty period.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party who is the Manager of the service centre  was examined as OPW1.  It is admitted by him that the vehicle was handed over to them Complaining oil leakage  the vehicle was periodically doing service with them.  On verification  it was found that there exists complaint  with the  radiator also  and they have changed the necessary parts.

          7.  3^rd and 4^th  Opposite Parties who are the manufacturer did not entered into the box to prove that there is no manufacturing  defect as far as the vehicle is concerned. 

          8. The Commission after making a thorough  evaluation of all the records     and evidences produced     from   either sides,  had observed the following:-  The complainant had purchased   the vehicle from the Opposite Party which stands unchallenged including the price,  date, period of warranty and financial assistance availed  by the Complainant.  Even though the Opposite party  raising question about the maintainability,  the purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose by the Complainant and non jointer of necessary parties, the Opposite parties had not  proved or substantiated the questions, with any other element of evidences. 

          9. From the records and evidences it can be seen that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant had oil leakage problem at 15000 kms within the warranty period.  Therefore the vehicle was taken to Opposite Parties service centre on different  dates as  is being seen from Ext.A3 series.  The recurrent  service required  for the vehicle itself  very clearly shows that the allegation raised by the Complainant regarding the oil leakage is true.  Even though it can be seen that the spare parts related to the complaint was  replaced by the Opposite Party, the Complaint alleged by the  Complainant in the vehicle persisted without cure,  which shows that the vehicle is having an inherent complaint  in  the  oil storage accessories which is clear from the evidences produced by the Complainant,  issued by the service professional of the Opposite Parties.

          10.  In such circumstances,  the examination and report of an expert in this case is not necessary and even without that  and from the records  itself it is evident that the complaint raised by the Complainant  is correct and therefore it is proved.

          11. Commission observed that the Opposite Parties are not centralizing in answering to the defect of the vehicle in particular and it diversifying by saying maintainability,   limitation etc which is to be viewed as the laxity  in answering to the  real reason of the defect of the vehicle. 

          12.  Hence  Complainant had proved  his case on merit and Opposite Parties are liable  and responsible to compensate the loss sustained to the Complainant.

          Hence the following orders are issued.

1.  Opposite Parties shall service the vehicle into   factory/perfect condition and to return the vehicle to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order,   free of costs.
2. An amount of Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees Fifty thousand only) shall  be paid to the Complainant as compensation within 30 days  by the Opposite Parties for the loss  and hardship sustained by the Complainant,  otherwise shall attract interest at the rate of 6% from the the  date of order till  the date of  realization.
3. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be given as costs of  the proceedings.
4. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the above directions.

The CC No.162/2021 is allowed  accordingly.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected   by  

me   and  pronounced  in  the  Open  Commission on this the   18^th  day of April 2023.

          Date of filing:12.11.2021

                                                                             PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER     :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.           P. Srinivasan.                           Business.    

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.        Jejulesh.                                   Works Manager, Indus Motors.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.             Loan Repayment Schedule.                         dt:23.10.2019.

A2.             Copy of Registration Certificate.       

A3(a).         Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.        

A3(b).         Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.        

A3(c).         Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.        

A3(d).         Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.        

A3(e).         Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.        

A3(f).                   Copy of Job Card.                                                dt:21.10.2021.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.              Copy of Vehicle History.

PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

MEMBER :   Sd/-