BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 347/2002 Filed on 09.08.2002

Dated : 15.09.2009

Complainant:

Subeesh. S, S/o Sathyanesan, 'Kripa', Valiyavilappuram, Ottasekharamangalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Jayakumar Abraham)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Benz Motors, Simis Garden Workshop, Muttathara, Thiruvananthapuram-8.

    

2. The Managing Director, Benz Motors, Jawan Cross Road, Edappally-682 024.

    

3. The Regional Manager, TELCO, Kandomkulathy Tower, 4^th Floor, Opp: Maharaja's College Ground, M.G. Road, Cochin-682 002.

(By adv. Menon & Menon)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 17.02.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 17.08.2009, the Forum on 15.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant purchased a Tata Spacio vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 13.06.2001, that company offered 3 years warranty for the engine and 18 months warranty for other parts of the vehicle, that the periodic services was done in the 1^st opposite party's workshop and that complainant was satisfied prior to the last service on 17.05.2002. On 17.05.2002 complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with a major complaint that some abnormal sound was coming from the gear box like something broken inside. The said sound would become loud in the third gear position and after inspecting the vehicle the 1^st opposite party advised the complainant that it would become OK after a short period of running. On 28.06.2002 complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to rectify the same problem and on 29.06.2002 when he went to 1^st opposite party workshop, he came to know that the 1^st opposite party replaced 'Tata Safari' part in his Tata Spacio vehicle instead of its genuine part. 1^st opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 5,670/- during the warranty period breaching the warranty conditions. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to rectify the problem in the vehicle, to extend the delayed warranty period, to allow the expenses incurred for alternative vehicle during the delayed period and to allow Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed objection contending that complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose by engaging driver and that complainant is not a consumer. Complainant and his driver were using the vehicle in a rough manner. Complainant had carried out all periodical service at the workshop of the opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram. On 17.05.2002 complainant had brought the vehicle for carrying out the 30000 km service and had complained of other defects including clutch fork rattling noise. Workshop authorities tested the vehicle and found no abnormalities with the clutch system and the vehicle returned to the complainant on 17.05.2002 itself after carrying out service and attending to the other complaints raised by the complainant. On 28.06.2002 complainant had brought the vehicle for carrying out the 35000 km service. On that day also he had complained of clutch rattling. On the basis of the complaint gear box was dismantled and clutch disc had been inspected. It was noticed that there was only a minor wear and tear of the clutch disc corresponding to the kilometres covered. The replacement of the clutch disc owing to the normal wear and tear does not come within the purview of warranty, the clutch disc of the complainant's vehicle was replaced free of cost on a goodwill basis. There is no basis in the allegation of the complainant that opposite parties had replaced Tata Safari part in his Tata Spacio vehicle instead of a genuine part. The parts replaced in the vehicle are Tata Spacio parts. There is no merit in the allegation that complainant was asked to remit Rs. 5,670/- during the period of warranty. There was no defects as voiced by the complainant. Opposite party never acted against the stipulations of warranty. Opposite party never committed any deficiency in service causing heavy pecuniary loss as well as mental sufferings to the complainant. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3^rd opposite party filed version denying all the allegations levelled against the 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the vehicle developed any problem during warranty period?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get the vehicle rectified?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get extension of warranty period?

4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant's Power of Attorney Holder has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P24 were marked. Commission Report has been marked as Ext. C1. In rebuttal, opposite parties have filed proof affidavits. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents.

Points (i) to (v):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant purchased a Tata Spacio vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 13.06.2001, that the company offered 3 years warranty for the engine and 18 months warranty for the other parts of the vehicle, that the periodic service was done in the 1^st opposite party workshop and that complainant was satisfied prior to the last service on 17.05.2002. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 17.05.2002 complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with a major complaint that some abnormal sound was coming from the gear box like something broken inside in the starting condition of the vehicle, that the said sound would become loud in the 3^rd gear position and that after inspecting the vehicle 1^st opposite party advised the complainant that it will become O.K after a short period of running. It has been contended by the complainant that on 28.06.2002 he had approached the 1^st opposite party to rectify the same problem and on 29.06.2002 when he went to the 1^st opposite party's workshop, he came to know that the 1^st opposite party replaced 'Tata Safari' part in his Tata Spacio vehicle instead its genuine part. It is further stated by the complainant that 1^st opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 5,670/- during the warranty period breaching the warranty conditions. Opposite parties resisted the complaint by submitting that the services and rectification of defects if any pointed by the complainant had been attended to, to the satisfaction of the complainant, that the complainant was given the benefits of warranty on a goodwill basis, when he was not entitled for the same such as while replacing the clutch disc which had worn out on account of normal wear and tear. Ext. C1 is the commission report, wherein Inspection details are seen mentioned. In his report it is stated that on analyzing the job records no recurring problems related to any of the vehicle components were noticed except the clutch. The accident repairs were done for the body deformations. As a major repair the clutch disc was found to be replaced under warranty at an odometer reading 36149 km on 28.06.2002 as per the entries on the job card No. 2042 dated 28.06.2002 of the 1^st opposite party. Earlier to this the clutch rattling problems were reported on 17.05.2002 at an odometer reading 31881 km as per the entries on the job card No. 1071 dated 17.05.2002 of the 1^st opposite party. This can be treated as a premature failure of the clutch. However, the reason for the failure could not be ascertained since the replaced part was not available at the time of inspection since it was sent for the warranty claim. In Ext. C1 commissioner has elaborately discussed the condition of the vehicle at the time of inspection. The records of the vehicle, engine, chassis and cabin numbers were verified and found correct. The battery of the vehicle appeared to be in good condition and the engine was able to start in the first attempt itself. But the clutch pedal pay was not sufficient enough to engage the gears. On inspection it is found that the clutch fluid was leaking from the master cylinder reservoir and the slave cylinder was found in jammed condition. So the vehicle was taken inside the garage and the clutch master cylinder, slave cylinder and clutch assembly were dismantled for inspection. On inspection some defects were noted. All the necessary defected components were replaced and the vehicle was brought to running condition by the service station authorities under the supervision of the commissioner. The vehicle was driven under different road conditions and it was found performing satisfactory. The petitioner was also convinced that the previously existed problems related to clutch and the gear box was rectified satisfactorily. It is stated by the commissioner that the inspection was done by mainly concentrating on the problem related to the transmission components of the vehicle, that is clutch and gear box of the vehicle, but the reason for the premature of the clutch at 36149 km was not cited in the job record. It can be noted that the vehicle is fitted with hydraulically operated clutch which requires more attention and periodical maintenance than the mechanically operated clutch. Improper maintenance or improper clutch pedal play adjustments, which persist for long durations, can lead to the premature failure of the clutch. The other chance of failure may be due to the poor quality and the expected usable life of the clutch plate used by the manufacturer. Commission has reported that normally the chances of such premature failure will occur during hill climbing, overloading and impact loading or during erratic driving and that as the replaced component was not available at the time of inspection, this could not be ascertained. The reason for the failure of the replaced clutch disc at the time of inspection was due to the breakage of torsion/ cushioning spring on the clutch. It is reported by the commission that the torsion spring may fail due to the actuation of sudden or impact load acting the clutch disc surface. This may be occurred due to the gear engagement without the proper declutching. The problems noticed for the failure of clutch disc was also associated with the failure of the clutch master cylinder and slave cylinder. The clutch cannot be disengaged completely if the master cylinder and slave cylinder fails in the hydraulically operated clutch. The problems related to the shifting of gears quoted by the petitioner are related to the partial disengagement of the clutch. It is also reported by the commission that the vehicle was fitted with clutch auto make clutch disc which is a company recommended genuine part. Further, the clutch disc replaced during the warranty claim was a genuine part of Spacio and it was not that of a Safari as alleged by the complainant. Further commissioner says, the gear box of the vehicle was having absolutely no problems and the components were found to be in good condition when dismantled at the time of inspection. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of the commission report, the allegation raised in the complaint that instead of its genuine part 1^st opposite party has replaced Tata Safari part in Tata Spacio Vehicle is found incorrect. No manufacturing defect in the vehicle has been stated by the expert commissioner. Further, the finding of the commissioner that the defects to the clutch disc, clutch master cylinder and slave cylinder will occur on overloading, impact loading or during erratic driving, neither challenged nor raised objection to commission report by the complainant. No documents furnished by the complainant to show any sort of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of September 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 347/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of warranty book

P2 - Copy of vehicle record sheet.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 11.07.2002.

P4 - Copy of delivery slip.

P5 - Copy of e-mail letter dated 06.07.2002 addressed to 2^nd

opposite party.

P6 - Copy of letter dated 08.07.2002 addressed to 2^nd opposite

party.

P7 - Copy of reply letter dated 08.07.2002 from 2^nd opposite

party.

P8 - Copy of reply letter dated 15.07.2002 sent by the

complainant to 2^nd opposite party.

P9 - Copy of fax receipt and telephone bills.

P10 - Copy of letter dated 15.07.2002 sent by the 1^st opposite

party to complainant.

P11 - Copy of reply letter dated 26.07.2002 sent by the

complainant to 1^st opposite party.

P12 - Copy of fax receipt and telephone bills.

P13 - Copy of letter dated 30.07.2002 sent by the complainant to

3^rd opposite party.

P14 - Copy of fax receipt and telephone bills.

P15 - Copy of letter dated 30.07.2002 sent by the complainant to

TELCO, Pune.

P16 - Copy of fax receipt and telephone bills.

P17 - Copy of reminder letter dated 07.08.2002.

P18 - Receipt of commission batta dated 12.11.2002.

P19 - Photos of damaged part( 2 Nos.)

P20 - Job card issued by Benz Motors.

P21 - Cash bill and labour bill issued by Benz Motors dated

21.02.2004.

P22 - Cash bill and labour bill issued by Benz Motors dated

26.04.2004.

P23 - Receipt of hire charges.

P24 - Copy of repair order form dated 22.11.2002.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

C1 - Commission Report

PRESIDENT