D.O.F:29/04/2014
D.O.O:13/09/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.83/2014
Dated this, the 13th day of September 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
1.Munawar Abdul Rahiman,
S/o. Abdul Rahiman, : Complainants
M.P. Ahammed Manzil, Bangara,
P.O. Manjehwar Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv:C.Damodaran)
2. Abdul Rahman, M.P.Ahammed Manzil, Bangara,
Po. Manjesh Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv. Shrikanta shetty)
And
1. The Manager, German Motors, Citizen Nagar,
Chengala, Kasaragod.
2. The Manager, German Motors, Opposite Parties
118 a Chungam Junction,West Hill Calicut.5.
(Adv: M.C. Jose)
3. Managing Director General Motors, Chevrolet Sales India (P)Ltd,
Surinder Jhakar Bhavan, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.3
Tower B 3rd floor, Sector 72, Gurgaon 122001.
(Adv: V. Shankar)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Cruze car from Opposite Party, later registered with transport authority as KL-14 L 747. The car is used by his son, second complainant. During travel to Bangalore on 12/10/2011 for the purpose of attending marriage, the vehicle showed the difficulty in engaging and change of gear. When vehicle is taken to Opposite Party they informed that vehicle will be alright after first service. The vehicle is delivered on 08/10/2011. During second service Opposite Party collected amounts and several complaints during 2013, 2014 and car is still in garage since 2014. On 29/062012 car met with an accident since its AC was not working fog is not cleared. Despite collecting more than Rs. 1,00,000/- the vehicle could not be set right. The gear box, AC engine automatically get locked, thus it suffers manufacturing defect. Thus complainant suffered deficiency in service and heavy loss. Complainant demands replacement of car or to pay its price and compensation and litigation costs. Complaint was later amended impleading Opposite PartyNo:2 , dealer in Calicut and manufacturer as Opposite Party No:3 as per order in IA 116/2018. IA 308/2016 allowed as per order dated 23/08/2016 permitting to conduct the case through power of attorney.
2. The Opposite Party No:1filed its version. Purchase of vehicle is admitted. But denied having any defects except periodical services, causing of accident due to defect is denied the vehicle is still with Opposite Party No:2.
3. The Opposite Party No: 2 filed its version. The Opposite Party No:2 denied allegations. Vehicle met with an accident within 20 days of its purchase accident is not covered by warranty. Vehicle covered distance of more than 24000 kilometer neither its gear nor steering or air conditioning suffer any defect. Opposite Party No: 3 is impleaded based on complaint of manufacturing defect.
4. The Opposite Party No:3 filed their written version. Purchase of vehicle is admitted. Allegations of manufacturing defect are denied. Complainant suppressed fact that car met with accident. No warranty for accidental repairs. At the most warranty is for defective part if at al. defect reported was notified to service partner and then it covered 10452 kilometers. Vehicle met with accident vehicle is driven rushly thus caused several accidents not liable to replace vehicle or pay damages or its price and thus to dismiss complaint.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A38 documents marked from complainant side. Opposite Party was cross examined and Dw1, Ext B1 and Ext C1 marked. Opposite Party filed arguments notes.
6. Following points arise in the case for considerations:-
a) Whether there is an manufacturing defect to the vehicle and if so whether Opposite Party jointly and severally liable to replace it or refund its price?
b) Whether there is an deficiency in service for Opposite Party’s and whether complainant is eligible compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the Points are considered together for convenience.
7. From the documents and evidence made available it is proved that complainant has kept the vehicle to the Opposite Party show room for repairs on 25/02/2014 and till date vehicle is kept the Opposite Party No: 2 without any justifiable reasons. When complainant ready to take back the vehicle paying the agreed service charges and when a customer keeps the vehicle for warranty repairs it is in the best interest to carry them out as soon as possible or at least reply them to take back the vehicle by collecting its repair charges if any. But Opposite Party No:1 or 2 did not inform the complainant to take back the vehicle or repair it for the defects if any reported by collecting its repair charges if any. If the dealer holds the vehicle for longer period than is considered normal for a particular repair or insisting payment more than due, or not informing the position as in this case, complainant is entitled to claim compensation as per law.
8. The Ext C1 report by AMVI Kanhangad shows that the vehicle on 27/05/2017 Turbocharger is device which is used to increase the power, turbocharger is not functioning at the starting of engine is not correct. Finally confirmed opinion that there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle but problems are due to poor maintenance of the vehicle.
9. Pw1 admits in cross examination that on all four times, vehicle is taken for service repairs of is due to accidental damage. Once mouse entered the car and damaged it. Vehicle is repaired at service centre till it completed 29523 kilometers. He admits four times insurance is claimed. We have referred the citations in the decision reported in TATA Motors Limited Vs ANTONIO PAULO VAZ 18 February 2021-2021 0 AIR (SC) 1149.
10. The warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part their of is repaired or attend otherwise than in accordance with standered repair procedure, we find that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore, no deficiency found on the part of the manufacturer, Opposite Party No:3. Due to the negligence in maintaining the vehicle properly on the part of the complainant, warranty already stood revolved in terms of the clause. When there was no manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is not responsible for repair under warranty. Clearly there is no deficiency on the part of the manufacturer and that is why, we dismiss the complaint against the manufacturer Opposite Party No: 3.
11. Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 are under a duty to provide service to the vehicle at the earliest without due delay. We are of the considered opinion that the opposite Party No:1 and 2 should have delivered they vehicle on collecting the service charges to be fixed by Opposite Party No: 1 and 2. There is no justification for delay in delivery of the vehicle. Thus complainant could not use the vehicle for such a longer period. Thus there is serious deficiency in service of Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence we herby order and direct the Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 to return the vehicle to complainant after service and repair if any needed and making it road worthy after collecting its repair costs.
12. Thus complaint is allowed in part with a direction to Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 jointly and severally to return the vehicle KL- 14 L – 747 to the complainant after collecting its repair charges making the vehicle road worthy by cleaning/repairing all defects within one months from the date of receipt of the order. If on intimation complainant refuses to pay repair charges if any required and not taking back the vehicle as per directions. Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 are relieved of their liability to repair the vehicle and thus exonerated to the extent thereof. Complainant is also entitled to recover and Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation for the undue delay in returning the vehicle after repair to complainant for the serious deficiency in service and Opposite Parties are also liable to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- series- Performa invoice
A2- Vehicle sales statement
A3- Owner’s manual and service book
A4- Repair order
A5- Preliminary Inspection form
A6 to A 10- Retail invoice
A11 to A13- Invoice
A 14- Retail invoice(cash)
A15- Retail cash memo
A16- Preliminary inspection form
A17- Retail invoice
A18- Warranty invoice
A19- Retail invoice cash
A20- Warranty invoice
A21- Retail invoice (Cash)
A22- Pick up and drop slip
A23- Preliminary inspection Form
A24- Retail invoice (Cash)
A25- Customer Assistance call
A26- Free service details
A27- Repair order
A28- Estimate of repair of vibrant motors
A29 to A34 - Retail invoice
A35- Tax invoice
A36- Wheel alignment report
A37- Bill
A38- Vehicle alignment report
B1- copy of global service history of vehicle bearing No: KL-14-L-747
C1- Inspection report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Abdul Rahiman
Dw1- Rameshan Balan Nair
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
