DATE OF FILING : 12.05.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.96/2009

Between

Complainant :

Simili W/o George,

Kattamkottil House,

Mulakuvally P.O,

Thadiyampadu,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties :

1. The Manager,

Focuz Motors,

Focuz Corporation Private Limited,

Focuz Towers, Edappally,

Cochin – 24.

(By Advs: Sibi Thomas, V.Krishnamenon, P.J.Anilkumar & U.K.Devidas)

2. Popular Mega Motors(I) Limited,

Pala Road,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Complainant purchased a Tata 407 mini lorry on 7.02.2007 from the Ist opposite party. The vehicle was serviced at the 2^nd opposite party's workshop by the direction of the Ist opposite party on 12.02.2007, 22.05.2007, 26.11.2007 and on 23.04.2008. There was some complaint for the clutch of the vehicle and it was informed to the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties by the complainant all the times. But the opposite parties did not rectify the same after repeated requests. On 22.07.2008, the complainant approached the Ist opposite party directly with the vehicle and the opposite party cured the defect of the vehicle. But they charged Rs.12,196/- from the complainant because the warranty period of the vehicle was already expired. So the petition is filed for getting back the amount paid by the complainant for the service of the vehicle and also for compensation.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the Consumer Protection Act Section2(1)(d). It is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the Ist opposite party but they never directed the complainant to service the vehicle in the 2^nd opposite party's workshop. The names and addresses of the authorised dealers and authorised workshops of M/s.Tata Motors Limited is mentioned in the operator manual and it is entirely the discretion of the customer as to which authorised workshop she intends to service her vehicle during the period of warranty. At any point of time either on 22.05.2007, 26.11.2007, 23.04.2008 or at any other day prior to 22.07.2008 had the complainant brought her vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party nor had she even contacted this opposite party over the telephone with respect to the complaints in the vehicle as alleged. The vehicle of the complainant was brought to the workshop of the Ist opposite party for the first time on 22.07.2008 for carrying out the 20000 Kms periodical service as well as attending to certain repairs such as less pulling and less mileage and also for checking the clutch of the vehicle. The opposite party duly serviced the vehicle. In terms with the conditions of warranty applicable to the vehicle purchased by the complainant, she was liable to meet the expenses for the repairs on the clutch-disc, brake liner and the fuel injection pump as the warranty for the same had already expired. The complainant had accordingly paid an amount of Rs.12,196/- towards the repair of the vehicle without any demur. This opposite party duly replied for the lawyers notice sent by the complainant and there is no deficiency in their part.

3. As per the written version of the 2^nd opposite party, it is stated that the complainant did not entrust the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 12.02.2007. Hence the 2^nd opposite party is not answerable for the mileage alleged by the complainant. It is true that the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repairs on 22.05.2007 and 26.11.2007. But on 23.04.2008 the vehicle was given for free service. The complainant asked this opposite party to rectify defect if any that can cause low pulling. This opposite party cleaned the air filter that can affect low pulling. No complaint regarding clutch was alleged even during free service. This opposite party did not make any delay in rectifying any complaint pointed by the complainant or did not take any unnecessary payments from the complainant. So the petition is liable to be dismissed.
 

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

6. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting back the amount paid by the complainant for the service of her vehicle in the warranty period. The husband of the complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, he is plying the vehicle for his livelihood and there is no other source of income for him. It was directed by the Ist opposite party at the time of purchase that, the vehicle can be serviced in the authorised workshop of Tata Motors. The 2^nd opposite party is the convenient workshop for the complainant to repair the vehicle. There is a warranty of 3 years for the vehicle. The copy of the service book of the vehicle is marked as Ext.P1. PW1 several times informed the Ist opposite party about the clutch complaint of the vehicle. At last he approached the Ist opposite party directly on 22.07.2008 and charged Rs.12,196/- for the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt issued from the Ist opposite party for the same. The complainant compelled to pay the amount because he was in need of the vehicle. The works manager of the Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 never received any complaint from the complainant about the defect of the vehicle. They only knew about the complaint of the vehicle at the time when the complainant approached this opposite party. DW1 duly serviced the vehicle at that time. The Service Manager of the 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW2. The vehicle of the complainant was serviced by the 2^nd opposite party several times. Complainant told this opposite party about the complaints of of the vehicle. Exts.R1 and R2 are the copy of the job cards of the service of the vehicle.

7. The only dispute is that whether the warranty period of the vehicle is expired or not. It is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party that the vehicle was having complaint of low pulling at the time of service of the vehicle. It is also admitted by the Ist opposite party that the vehicle is having major clutch complaints and defect in fuel injection pump. The opposite party repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.12,196/-. It is also admitted by the Ist opposite party. So it means that the vehicle is having major complaints even within one year. The complainant produced the operators' service book of the vehicle. In that service book in page No.5, it is written that " This warranty shall be valid for 36 months from the date of sale of the vehicle by our Works or our Regional Sales Offices or our Sales Establishments or our authorised dealers, or 3,00,000 km., whichever is earlier". Here the vehicle is purchased on 7.02.2007 and the service of the vehicle for Rs.12,196/- is done on 22.07.2008. That means the vehicle was serviced within 1 ½ years. So we think that the service of the vehicle is in warranty period and the complainant is entitled to get the amount paid in that period.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give back Rs.12,196/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of January, 2010
 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

On the side  of Complainant :

PW1 - K.V.George

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Manoj Varghese John

DW2 - Immanuel Job

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Service Book of the vehicle

Ext.P2(series) - Photocopy of Receipt dated 22.07.2008 for Rs.12,196/- issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Lawyer Notice issued by the advocate of the complainant to the Ist opposite party

Ext.P4 - Copy of Reply Notice dated 10.10.2008 issued by the advocate of the Ist opposite party

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Job Card dated 22.05.2007 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Job card dated 26.11.2007 issued by the 2^nd opposite party