Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

115/2014

V.Krishnan,S/o.Velayutham, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Magma fincorp ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ramesh

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  13.10.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

FRIDAY THE 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.115/2014

 

 

V.Krishnan,

S/o.Velayutham,

No.2/48, 6^th Street,

Nethaji Nagar, West Lakshmi Nagar,

Mudichur, Chennai – 48.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Magma Fincorp Ltd.,

Navin’s Poddium, 7-A, E’ Block,

New No.17/19,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Chennai – 600 029.

 

2.The Manager,

M.P.L Motors Pvt Ltd,

No.450/1, G.K.Industrial Estate,

Lakshmi Nagar, Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                       : 18.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                            : M/s.K.Ramesh, V.Ravishankar

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                      : M/s.T.Srinivasaraghavan

                                                                          &Associates

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                            : M/s. R.Venkatajalapathy

                                                                          V.Rajesh Babu

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the clutch plate cost of Rs.15,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the compliant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased the Mahindra Zylo D2 vehicle from the 1^st opposite party on 03.07.2013 by paying initial amount of Rs.1,33,000/-. The balance amount was financed by the 1^st opposite party and the complainant was paying an EMI of Rs.18,400/- per month.

          2. During the month of December 2013 the clutch plate in the complainant vehicle was not working properly. The complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair to the 2^nd opposite party. The clutch plate was replaced and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the charge. Again during 2014 the same plate went under repair and that time clutch plate replaced and serviced on payment of Rs.5,000/-.

          3. For the 3^rd time, the same problem arose on August 2014. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 01.04.2014. He demanded for replacement a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was not having the said money. The opposite party under the obligation to change the clutch plate continuous defect in the clutch plate is a serious manufacturing defect. Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 2 have committed deficiency in service.

          4. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice dated 16.04.2014  and filed this complaint to refund the cost of the clutch plate of Rs.15,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the compliant.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE    1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party denies averments made in the complaint. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer and this opposite party is only a financier. The complainant entered a loan agreement for the purchase of the vehicle with this opposite party and he had paid the amount for the purchase of the vehicle. Beyond that this opposite party no connection with the vehicle. This opposite party is a mis-joinder to the complaint and he had not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE    2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that he had sold the vehicle as a dealer to the complainant. The complainant had brought the car to the work shop of this opposite party on 10.10.2013 complaining clutch problem.  The maintenance crew of this opposite party immediately attended the vehicle and dismantled the Clutch Assembly in front of the authorized representative of the complainant and found that the clutch plate had worn out badly, mainly due to the driver’s clutch pedal driven habit, while driving. Due to the drivers clutch pedal driven habit the warranty is not applicable for the replacement of the clutch plate. However, as a gesture a discount of 50% of material cost was given. For the 2^nd time was also replaced with same terms. For the 3^rd time, the same problem on 01.04.2014 the complainant brought the vehicle. Clutch assembly was dismantled in the presence of the complainant and noticed that the problem was due to drivers fault, hence the complainant insisted for fully payment for replacement of clutch. The complainant refused to pay the amount and hence the 3^rd time repair was not done as there is no manufacturing defect in the clutch plate. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Mahindra Zylo D2 vehicle from the 1^st opposite party  on 03.07.2011 from the 2^nd opposite party dealer on payment of Rs.1,33,000/- and the balance amount was paid 1^st opposite party financier for the complainant and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the clutch plate defect during 2013, January 2014 and on both occasions on payment of Rs.5,000/- new clutch plate was replaced and again for the 3^rd time the complainant entrusted the vehicle on 01.04.2014 for the same clutch problem. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that the clutch plate was changed twice and even after that the same problem arose for the 3^rd time and therefore, there is a serious manufacturing defect in the clutch plate and the 2^nd opposite party also negligently did service in respect of the same and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          9. The 1^st opposite party would contend that he is only a financier and he has no nexus with the alleged defect in the car and the 2^nd defendant would contend that the clutch plate was found worn-out badly due to the drivers clutch pedal driven habit, while driving and therefore he has not committed any deficiency and if at all the defect arose only due to the driving style of the drivers and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          10. The 1^st opposite party is only a financier. He has nothing to do with the vehicle defect. According to the advice of the complainant he made finance to the car. Therefore we hold that the complainant has not proved any deficiency against 1^st opposite party.

          11. The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party admits that  the complainant entrusted the vehicle thrice to him and the first two occasions the clutch plate was replaced on payment of Rs.5,000/- each time. It is further admitted that the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 01.04.2014 for the problem of vehicle not moving and clutch plate not raising as evidenced in Ex.B4 at page-26. The 2^nd opposite party refused to do the replacement of clutch plate as required by the complainant. Hence the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in the same condition as the vehicle was not moving and this fact was evidenced at page -27 of Ex.B4.

          12. According to the complainant, since repeatedly the clutch plate had problem the same was a manufacturing defect. The 2^nd opposite party categorically stated that the clutch plate had worn out badly due to the drivers clutch pedal driven habit while driving. This fact was not denied by the complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed subsequent to the filing of the written version of the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore the non denial of the 2^nd opposite party’s version that the clutch plate was worn out due to the drivers fault is accepted. Further the complainant has not adduced any acceptable evidence to prove that the clutch plate was having manufacturing defect. The manufacturer was also not added as a party. Therefore in such circumstances we hold that the complainant has not proved the manufacturing defect in the clutch plate and also the 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in servicing the vehicle. In view of such conclusion, it is further held that the 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 13^th day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.07.2013                   Registration Book for Mahindra Zylo D2 Vehicle

                                                     No.TN 11 D 1200    

 

Ex.A2 dated 02.07.2013                   Insurance copy

 

Ex.A3 dated 09.07.2013                   Road Tax Copy

 

Ex.A4 dated 01.04.2014                   Vehicle History (Service details)

 

Ex.A5 dated NILL                            Advocate notice

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card from 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card from 2^nd opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 03.06.2014                   Notary Certificate

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B2 dated 10.10.2013                   Documents relating to the Clutch Plate issue and

                                                    its Replacement – 1^st time

 

Ex.B3 dated 21.01.2014                   Documents relating to the clutch plate issue and its

                                                    Replacement – 2^nd time

 

Ex.B4 dated 01.04.2014                   Documents relating to the Clutch plate issue -3^rd

                                                    time

 

Ex.B5 dated 26.05.2014                   Copy of the Returned Envelope containing the

                                                    Reply Notice

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT