DATE OF FILING: 01.08.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 165/2011
Between
Complainant : Ratheesh. J,
Kavumkal House,
Kulapparachal P.O,
Kuruvila City,
Idukki District.
(By Adv:K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
RF Motors,
Idukki Road,
Kattappana P.O,
Idukki District.
2. The Manager, RF Motors,
Pathadippalam,
Edappally P.O,
Kochi.
(Both by Advs: C.K.Babu & Anil.S.Raj)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is the registered owner of a Tata India car bearing Reg.No.KL-37A-3323. He purchased the vehicle for plying as a taxi for his livelihood on 14.02.2011. After few days of purchase of the vehicle, the alignment of the vehicle became defective so that the steering was not returning after turning curves. The matter was informed to the 2nd opposite party at the first service itself and also to the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party told that it will be repaired by the 2nd opposite party at the first service. While it was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for first service, they never cured the defects because the parts were not available there. After that the vehicle serviced twice at the opposite party's service centre and the matter was noted in the job card of the opposite party. But the defect was not cured by them. The complainant was not able to drive the vehicle because the steering of the vehicle will not return after turning the curves. While this complaint was existing the vehicle was met with an accident on 22.04.2011 at 6.15 A.M near Infopark, Kochi because of the complaint of the steering. While the vehicle was entrusted for repair, they insisted the complainant that the insurance amount will not be delivered if there was a steering complaint existing at the time of accident. So the complainant never informed the defect of steering to the surveyor of the insurance company at the time of inspecting the vehicle. After the repair of the vehicle due to the accident, the 2nd opposite party cured the defect of the steering of the vehicle. The complainant caused a loss of Rs.40,000/- including the expenses met in the workshop for the repair of the vehicle. The accident was caused only because there was steering complaint to the vehicle which was not cured by the opposite party even repeated demands. So this petition is filed for getting the loss sustained by the complainant due to the accident and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and not for self employment as alleged by the complainant. If there was a steering complaint, that it was “not returning” the vehicle cannot be plied even for a kilometer. The vehicle was purchased on 14.02.2011. But the matter was not informed to the opposite party on 14.03.2011, after one month from the date of purchase of the vehicle. At that time the vehicle had covered 1230 kilometers. Job Card No.JC-RFMOP-PL-1011-01688 dated 14.03.2011 also shows the same. It is admitted by the opposite party that such a complaint was raised during the time of the second service and it was the first time he raised such a complaint. But the complaint was not that the “steering was not returning”, but only that “steering system hard/stiff/heavy/stiff”. This was a minor complaint which was rectified along with the second service. The complainant himself checked the vehicle prior to take delivery, being satisfied that the complaint was rectified, issued a satisfaction letter and took delivery of the same on 2.04.2011. At that time the vehicle was covered 5148 Kms. It means that the complainant plied the vehicle till 21.04.2011 when he brought the vehicle for the 3rd service. The vehicle was then covered 10100 Kms, that is another 4952 Kms in just 19 days. The complainant never informed about the steering complaint at that time. During the third free service, the complainant again complained that “steering system hard/stiff/heavy” and not of “steering not returning”, which was also rectified in the third service. With full satisfaction, the vehicle was delivered by him. The alleged accident was happened on the very next day after the third free service. The AMVI report of the vehicle shows that, what type of mechanical defect was caused to the vehicle at the time of accident. So the complainant is liable to produce the same. The real reason of the accident was withheld by the opposite parties. There is no such an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been spend by the complainant. The total cost of the repair was born by the insurance company. So there is no deficiency from the part of the opposite parties.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency from the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4(series) marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. The copy of the RC Book of the vehicle is marked as Ext.P1. The copy of the warranty card of the vehicle was also produced by the complainant, which is marked as Ext.P2. The Tax Invoices issued by the opposite party for the service of the vehicle dated 2.04.2011and 21.04.2011 are marked as Ext.P3(series). The copy of the bills for repair of the vehicle were produced and marked as Ext.P4(series). PW1 deposed that the power steering was defective so that the steering was not returning. There was no other defect to the vehicle and the matter was also entered in the job card. But the opposite party told that it will be cured automatically after the second service of the vehicle. The vehicle has driven about 10000 Kms and the complainant believed that the steering complaint will be cured after running some more kilometers as per the assurance of the opposite party. The vehicle was driven by the complainant at the time of accident and the matter was informed to the Edappally Police Station. The vehicle was also entrusted to the police station after the accident. While cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, the complainant deposed that the workshop bill was paid by the insurance company.
As per the complainant, the vehicle was having steering complaint after few days of purchase of the same, the steering was not returning. The matter was informed to the Ist opposite party at the first service itself. But the opposite party told that it will be cured after running some more kilometers and that was believed by the complainant. But it was difficult to ply the vehicle and it met with an accident on 22.04.2011 at 6.15 A.M near Infopark, Kochi. Rs.40,000/- was spent by the complainant including the expenses at the workshop for the repair of the vehicle. The bills for the same was also produced and marked as Ext.P3(series). But as per the opposite party, the complaint that “steering was not returning” was not informed to the opposite party by the complainant at the first service or any of the services. But in the second service of the vehicle he raised a complaint that “steering system hard/stiff/heavy” and that was cured by the opposite party during the second service itself. In the third service also, the matter was noted by the complainant that “steering system hard/stiff/heavy” and it was cured by the opposite party. The complainant got delivered the vehicle after full satisfaction and he signed the papers at the time of delivery. The customer copy of the job cards produced and marked as Ext.R1(series). As per the opposite party the complainant never informed such a complaint to the opposite party and not mentioned any such complaint in the job card stating that the “steering is not returning”. The complainant also never produced any evidence to show the matter that the “steering is not returning” was informed to the opposite party and it was written in the job card.
The main dispute of the complainant is that he spent about Rs.40,000/- for repair of the vehicle at the workshop due to an accident and the accident was caused due to the defect of the vehicle that the “steering is not returning”. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued and also stated in the written version that the complainant cannot ply the vehicle even one kilometer if the steering is not returning. The complainant never produced any AMVI report or Police report before the Forum to show that such an accident has been happened on 22.04.2011 at 6.15 A.M near Infopark, Kochi. If any report produced before the Forum, that ought to have showed that the vehicle was such a compliant and the steering complaint leaded accident to the vehicle. Nothing has been produced by the complainant to show that such an accident has been occurred to the vehicle. Moreover, on cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 himself deposed that the bill for the repair from the workshop has been paid by the insurance company. So we think that there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that such an accident has been happened to the vehicle and it caused only because of the steering complaint of the vehicle. As per the complainant, the complaint was informed to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not do anything so that this accident has been happened. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that there is deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2011
Sd/-
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - J.Ratheesh
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of R.C Book of the vehicle
Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Warranty Card of the vehicle
Ext.P3(series) - Photocopy of Tax Invoices(2 Nos) dated 21.04.2011
Ext.P4(series) - Photocopy of Bills for repair of the vehicle
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1(series) - Customer copy of Job Cards issued by the opposite party
