IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of October, 2015
Filed on 20.10.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.340/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Shilpa Prakash 1. The Manager, Concorde Motors
W/o S.K. Aniyan (India ) Ltd., II 10, 256/C
Aswathy, Thuravoor P.O. Survey No. 1562/1, Nettoor
Cherthala Maradu Panchyath, Cochin
Ernakulam
(By Adv. Menon & Menon)
2. The Managing Director
Fiat India Automobiles Ltd.
N.B-19 Ranjangaon, MIDC Industrial
Area, Ranjangaon – 412 210
Tauka Shirur District, Pune, India
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Fiat Linea Car through the first opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.9 lakhs. Complainant availed the extended warranty by paying an amount of near Rs.4000/-. While the vehicle attained 73607 km. the engine became smoothless and some enormous sound raised and the pickup of the vehicle became less and fuel consumption of the vehicle became very high. The first opposite party charged Rs.43,647/- for curing the defects. But even now the defects are not cured and the complainant several times contacted the opposite parties, but they did not rectify the defects of engine and not replaced the timing belt. Now the vehicle is not in a position to use. The opposite parties are willfully deviated from their representation and warranty. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint had availed an extended warranty for her vehicle provided by the Global Administrative Service. The extended warranty was subject to terms and conditions as specified by GAS. The complainant had not carried out 45000 and 75000 km. service at authorized work shop as mandated under the conditions of warranty prescribed by GAS. As there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant, she is not entitled either in law or on facts to seek refund of the price of the vehicle with interest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. Notice against the second opposite party served. But they did not turn up. Hence the second opposite party set ex-parte.
4. The power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The expert commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The document produced was marked as Ext.B1.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. According to the complainant, the vehicle purchased from the first opposite party became defective during the warranty period. The main allegation of the complainant is that while the vehicle attained 73607 km., the engine became smoothless and some enormous sound raised and the pickup of the vehicle became less and fuel consumption of the vehicle became very high. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party several times they did not cure the defects of the engine and not replaced the timing belt. The complainant had taken extended warranty by paying an amount near Rs.4000/- to the first opposite party. Ext.A2 is the extended warranty produced by the complainant. According to the first opposite party, the complainant had not carried out the periodical services for 45000 km. and 75000 km. at authorized workshop as per the conditions of the warranty. On perusing the Ext.B1 produced by the opposite parties it is seen that the complainant had done the service at 43964 km. and also at 73607 km. More over while cross examining the RW1 he also admitted that, " kÀÆokv lnÌdnbn Fkv.Fkv.kn. F¶v t\m«v sNbvXncnbv¡p¶Xv sjUyqÄUv kÀÆokv F¶mWv. hml\¯n\v I¼\n \nÀt±inbv¡p¶ kab§fnse kÀÆokv BWXv. 43964 Intemaoädnepw 73607 Intemaoädnepw hml\w \n§fpsS ImcntbPn Dmbncp¶t¸mÄ Fkv.Fkv.kn. F¶v tcJs¸Sp¯nbn«ptm?" "Dv." Hence the contention of the opposite party that the complainant had not carried out 45000 km. and 75 km. service at authorized work shop is not sustainable. While cross examining the opposite party he also admitted that they have levied Rs.43,647/- from the complainant for replacing the timing belt during the extended warranty period. According to the opposite party since there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle she is not entitled to seek refund of the price of the vehicle. The expert commission report which marked as Ext.C1 shows that the engine of the vehicle is creating the excessive smoke, noisy operation and less pulling. He also stated that the engine needs overhauling to make the vehicle in a road worthy condition. Complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by her in the complaint. At the same time, the vehicle has some defects as notified by the expert commissioner. While cross examining the complainant, he categorically stated that the extended warranty was issued by the first opposite party. More over the seal of the first opposite party is also affixed in the extended warranty. So they cannot evade from the liability to repair the vehicle during the extended warranty period. Since the warranty had been extended, it is the duty of the first opposite party to repair the defects during the warranty period. The failure on the part of the first opposite party in curing the defects of the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party is bound to refund the amount of Rs.43,647/- that they collected from the complainant during the extended warranty period. More over first opposite party is bound to repair the defects notified by the expert in the commission report.
In the result, complaint allowed partly. The first opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.43,647/- (Rupees forty three thousand six hundred and forty seven only) to the complainant. The first opposite party is further directed to cure all the defects of the vehicle specified in the commission report and make it in a road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The first opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2015.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aniyan S.K. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Warranty and owner service policy
Ext.A2 - Enhanced warranty
Ext.A3 - Letter from the first opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A4 - Proforma Invoice
Ext.A5 - Tax invoice
Ext.A6 - Receipt dated 13.5.2011
Ext.A7 series - Job cards – Customer copy (11 Nos.)
Ext.A8 - Service statement
Ext.C1 - Expert commission report
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Jayan. R. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Service History
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
