IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 29th day of July, 2016
Filed on 11.06.2015
Present
1. Smt.Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
3. Smt. Jasmine.D., Member
in
CC/No.174/2015
between
Complainant :- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Rajesh. S.R. 1. The Manager, Nissan Motors
Seethalayam India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office
Varanad P.O., Ward No.3 T-Nagar, Chennai
Thanneermukkom Panthayath (By Adv. Tomy Mathew)
Cherthala – 688 539
Represented by his brother 2. The Manager, EVM Automobiles
Sri. Ratheeshkumar -do- Pvt. Ltd., Building No.XVI/139 E (By Adv. E.D. Zacharias) INTUC Junction, Nettor, Maradu Cochin – 682 040
(By Adv. K. Antony Joseph) O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precisely is as follows:-
The complainant on 17th November 2012 purchased Nissan Sunny car from the opposite parties and the same was registered with Cherthala RTO bearing No. KL-32E 3666. The material car was carrying a warranty either up to 17th November 2014 or mileage of 40000 KM is attained whichever occurs earlier. At the time of purchase itself, the complainant noticed a dent on the right side door of the vehicle, and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. Thereafter a week later, the opposite parties claimed that the defective door of the vehicle was replaced with an afresh. When matters stood thus, on 10th September, 2014, the complainant attempted to open the vehicle using the remote system provided by the opposite parties. But the remote system of the vehicle didn’t work, and the door was not opened. The complainant tried to open the right door using the key in vain. The situation was inevitably imperative for the complainant had to take his sister’s child to the hospital. It was only at this point, the complainant realized that the said key was not suitable for the right door. The unsuitability of the key with the door was intimated to the opposite parties, but no useful steps were taken to rectify the said defect. That apart in October 2014, the air conditioner of the vehicle was not functioning properly. The 2nd opposite party when was informed offered to patch up the air conditioner free of cost, strangely still haven’t done so. Both the aforesaid complaints were made duly within the warranty period to the opposite parties. However the opposite parties were absolutely reluctant to address the complainant’s grievances. They only made offers and assurances to the complainant only to plainly educe them. The opposite parties inflicted indescribable mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant. Their practice was unfair. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. Notices were served. The opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The crux of the contentions of the opposite party is that the defect of the door was caused when the vehicle met with an accident and that too consequent upon the complainant’s rash driving. However the opposite parties replaced the door free of cost. When the deficiency as to the air conditioner was intimated, the opposite party affected necessary repairs to the same. The defect of the air conditioner was due to the complainant’s negligence in producing the vehicle as per the service schedule mandates, the first opposite party contends. According to the opposite party, the complainant had never intimated the impairment as to the air conditioner ever. The instant complaint has been filed with a view to make unlawful enrichment. The opposite parties have not committed deficiency of service. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties vigorously contend.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and the document Ext.A1was marked. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit. The commission report was marked as Ext.C1.
4. Holding in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up for consideration before us are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
2)Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. It appears that the opposite parties have neither disputed nor denied the material damage occurred to the vehicle. The key contention of the opposite parties is that the door of the vehicle was replaced free of cost. According to them the damage to the door was happened resultantly due to the negligent driving of the complainant. However as to the imperfection of the air conditioner, either of the opposite parties put forth varying views. One of the opposite parties claims that the necessary repair was affected on the air conditioner. At the same time the other opposite party contends that no such complaint was made by the complainant. Holding these contentions in mind, we made a searching survey of the materials placed on record by the parties. On a plain perusal of Ext.A1, it is unambiguously revealed that the complainant has to sustain the damage as to his vehicle purchased from the opposite parties. A close scrutiny of Ext.C1 commission report, it is infolded that the complainant has sustained damage to his vehicle. Going by the entire circumstance of the instant case, it is to be presumed that the contentions of the opposite parties do not merit acceptance. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get the defects of the vehicle rectified viz. the defects with regard to the right door and its key, and the air conditioner are to be patched up. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
The complaint allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - True copy of the RC particulars of the vehicle
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
