1

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL 2013

Present:          Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President

Adv. Ravisusha, Member

C.C.NO.84/2010

Sudhakaran                                                     :           Complainant

Keerthanam

Swamy Oil Mill Road

Contonment North

Kollam-691001

V/S

The Manager                                                   :           Opposite party

M/s Polular vehicles and Services Ltd,

Mundakkal West

Kollam

[By Adv. S.Riyas, Kollam]

ORDER

SMT. G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT

            Complainants case is that he had entrusted the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL 2 P 7788 Alto car, to the O.P’s workshop on 7/5/2008 for doing 35,000 K.M paid service and to carryout checkup and repair based on his Specific Instructions as detailed in Job Card No.1730  dated 7/5/2008, that on enquiring about the progress of the work at around 3.30 P.M on 7/5/08, the O.P’s Service Supervisor has informed that the parts of the Brake System needs urgent replacement and the checking and rectification of Electrical System as detailed in Job Card mentioned above is in progress and the vehicle would be ready by  next day (8-5-2008) at 10.30 A.M, that on taking back the vehicle also, he had asked the Service Personnel about the work they have done about the Electrical System and they had replied having set right the complaint, that as there was nothing to suspect about Service Personnel’s affirmations, he himself along with his family went on a trip to Eranakulam on 10/5/08, that on his return trip from “Veega Land” Ernakulam , he was shocked to note that the car failed to start due to failure of suspected Electrical

2

Systems fault, that he and his family with girl children were way laid at Midnight around 11.15 P.M, little away from his home, that after suffering humiliation, mental agony and Physical Strain , he somehow made other arrangements to get the vehicle in his house, safely, that on 12/5/08, he informed the same Service Person about the incidents and he sent a man to check the vehicle and by using a replacement Battery the vehicle, was taken to M/s. Popular’s workshop, that thereafter, he informed him that unless the Battery of the vehicle is replaced, the vehicle cannot be run, that accordingly the battery of the vehicle is replaced entailing additional urgent financial commitment of nearly Rs.4,300/-, that he had sent registered  letter to the O.P, dated 13/5/08  giving them an opportunity to amicably settle the deficiency of service, without taking the matter to the Consumer Court, that they have not responded till date, and hence this complaint.

Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence liable to be dismissed in limine, that this opposite party is not a necessary party in the case since they are not manufactures of battery which was fitted in the complainant’s car, that the vehicle was reported to the opposite party station on 7/5/2008 for the periodic maintenance service, general checking and check electrical system, that on that day the brake system needed original replacement of brake pad  and the opposite party required time for checking the electrical system, so the opposite party had informed that matter to the complainant,  that then the opposite party had done the routine periodic maintenance along with replacement of the brake pad and checked all wiring connections of the electrical system and found that all the wiring lines are perfectly OK and the opposite party didn’t get any complaint regarding the electrical circuit, that on  the next day i.e. on 8/5/10 this opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant, that at the time of delivery of vehicle, the complainant himself inspected the vehicle and he had taken the  vehicle with full satisfaction of service done by the opposite party, that subsequently on 12/5/08 the opposite party attended the vehicle and found that the battery got defective , that this opposite party did not find any failure with the electrical system, that whenever the opposite party  replaced the battery, the vehicle used to start easily, that the vehicle failed to start because of the malfunctioning of the battery,

3

that the battery consist of 6 cells and it does not work even if one  cell  goes defective, that this opposite party cannot assure the life of the battery the failure can happen due to the following reasons, (1) Prolonged use of room lamp or any other lights without starting the   vehicle.(2) Use of any other accessories (Sterio, blower etc) without starting the vehicle.(3) Battery can also be damaged spontaneously.(4) Anyone of the above reason can be attributed for the vehicle not getting started, that when on 12/5/2008 the technicians attended the vehicle, they could start the vehicle immediately with a standby battery which shows that the electrical system was perfectly alright, that the failure was due to the battery complaint and not due to any diagnostic error, that this opposite party is not a manufacturer of the battery and therefore is not responsible for any failure of the battery, that on perusal of the battery fitted in the car it was found that the same was an old one, that the opposite party is conducting car services alone , that this opposite party is not liable or responsible for any defect occurring due to the failure of the battery , that the incident referred in the complaint was caused due to the failure of the battery alone, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of Parties, that if any complaint alleged in the complaint is there the complainant should include the manufacturer of battery as on among the opposite parties, that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the compensatory cost to this opposite party.

            The points that would arise for consideration are:-

(1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

(2)   Reliefs and costs?

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P6 and D1 to D3.

The points:-    It is the admitted case of the parties that complainants Alto Car bearing Reg. No. KL 2 P 7788 was entrusted with the O.P’s workshop on 7/5/2008 for doing 35000 K.M. paid service and to carry out check up and repair as Specified in Job card,

4

Ext P1. It is in evidence that as the brake system was found defective, the brake pad was replaced and on check up no defect was found in the electric wirings or connections and

Complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 8/5/08 and on 10/5/08 he along with his family went to a trip to ‘Veega land’ Ernakulam and on their return trip the car failed to start. According to the complainant the car failed to start due to failure of suspected Electrical Systems fault which ought to have been found out and rectified by OP’s service personnels before he took delivery of the vehicle prior to journey and so there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. But according to the OP on 12/8/08 on information when OP’s technical personnels attended the vehicle there was nothing wrong with the electric wiring system and the one and only defect found was that the vehicle used to start only when the battery is replaced with any / or stand by battery. Complainant as PW1 would swear before the Forum that “12/5/08  പുതിയ  battery fit sNbvXtijw hml\w start  BbtÃm? a.start Bbn. 12/5/08  battery amänh-¨XÃmsX  Ext.P1- asämcp ]Wnbpw sNbvXXmbn ImWp¶nÃtÃm ? a. Cà ” . Hence it would go to show that the brake down of the vehicle was solely due to the

malfunctioning of the battery. Battery has to be replaced at appropriate times by the owner of the vehicle. The battery consists of 6 cells and does not work even if one cell goes defective. It is in evidence that failure of battery can happen due to the following reasons (1) Prolonged use of room lamp or any other lights without starting the   vehicle. (2) Use of any other accessories (Sterio, blower etc) without starting the vehicle. (3) Battery can also be damaged spontaneously.(4) Anyone of the above reason can be attributed for the vehicle not getting started. At this juncture it is to be noted that battery malfunctioned after a long trip after taking delivery of the vehicle from OP’s work shop.

            It is also in evidence that the battery was an old one and the failure happened not on the service fault of the Op. Complainant as PW1 would swear before the Forum that “car hm§n-b-tijw Rm³ Battery മാറ്റിയിട്ടുണ്ട് . F¶ms-W¶v HmÀa-abn-Ã.- A-§s\ amdnb bill Asæn  warranty ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ ? a..CÃ. A-§s\ Battery amän-bn-«ps­-¦n BbXnsâ bill Dw warranty card Dw lmPcm¡pambn-cp¶p F¶p ]dbp-¶p.? a. AXnsâ bill Dw voucher Dw ssIhiw CÃ. Warranty Dw product hm§pt¼mÄ bill Dw warranty card Dw Iy-Xyambn kq£n¡pw F¶p ]dbp-¶p ?. a. warranty Ign-Rm BbXv kq£n¡mdnÃ. 8/5/08 epw 10/5/08 epw D­m-bn-cp¶ battery warranty Ign-R battery Bbn-cp-¶p F¶p ]d-bp-¶p? a AtX¸än Ad-nbnÃ. Warranty period കഴിഞ്ഞതുകൊണ്ടല്ലേ Ah \in-¸n-¨Xv?a. AsX.” As we have already mentioned the battery has to be replaced at appropriate times by the owner of the vehicle.

            Following the above discussion we have no hesitation to safely conclude that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.

Dated this the 23^rd day of April 2013

G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-

ADV.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-

Forwarded/ by Order

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

I N D EX

1. List of witness for the complainant

              PW.1 :- Sudhakaran

2. List of Documents  for the complainant

Exbt.P1:- Repair Bill

Exbt.P2:-Repair bill details dated   07/05/08

Exbt.P3:-Bill

Exbt.P4:-Hotel Srinivas bill dated 10/5/08

Exbt.P5:-Vehicle parking receipt

6

Exbt.P6:-Letter from Sudhakaran dated 13/05/08.

3. List of witness for the opposite party

DW1: Nidhi

       4.  List of documents for the opposite party

Exbt.D1:-Authorisation letter from Popular vehicle

Exbt.D2:- Bill details dated 08/05/08

Exbt.D3:- Bill details dated  12/05/08