Kerala

Idukki

CC/15/183

Mr.Manu A C - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Daiwik Motors(P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :30/05/15

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of June 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 183/2015

Between

Complainant : Manu A.C.,

Aruvikkuzhiyil House,

Pachady P.O., Nedumkandam,

Idukki District, Pin -685 553.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Managing Director,

Daiwik Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Jane & Jane Arcade,

Cheppally Junction,

Shakthikulangara, Kollam.

2 . The International Cars and Motors Ltd.,

VIII Chak Gujaran P.O., Piplanwala,

Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur,

Punjab (India)-146 022.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a car manufactured by the additional second opposite party model Extreme VD for taxi purpose by paying Rs.10,40,000/-. Out of this an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- was arranged as a vehicle loan from Canara bank. This loan was arranged by the sales executive of the first opposite party. Before purchasing the vehicle, the sales executive of the first opposite party approached the complainant and offered to sale the vehicle to the complainant along with banking loan and he further said that, they have full fledged service centre in Kattappana and having branches all over Kerala. Believing the words of a Shinulal, the sales officer, the complainant happened to purchase the vehicle for his livelihood. From the date of purchase complainant used the vehicle for taxi purpose. Immediately after its purchase

(Cont.....2)

-2-

complainant noted bubbles in the body of the car and painting pulled out some parts and started rusting. Then the matter was intimated to the first opposite party. They said that they will cure the defect by repainting the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle showed various defects such as defect in centre lock system, low mileage, low pulling fault in hand break system etc. At the time of delivery the company offered 17 Km/litre diesel. But when the complainant using the vehicle he noticed that the vehicle gets only 10-11 km mileage per litre diesel. More over he noticed low pulling while the A/C is working. On examination the first opposite party stated that this is due to the faulty fuel injection pump. The opposite parties cured this defect with 2 days. But still the problem is persisting. Then after he noticed that the hand break of the vehicle is not working. Again the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite parties. For better performance the opposite parties removed the hand break. In the month of August the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite parties for curing the defect of leaking coolant from the radiator.

 

Complainant further averred that when he contacted the opposite party's service centre for booking the vehicle for first service he found that the service centre closed. While he tried to contact them in phone, the phone was switched off. When he contacted them Kottarakkara service centre, they replied that he can approach their kottarakkara or Ettumanoor service centre. Hence he approached the Ettumanoor service centre which is more than 150 km away from his residence. The complainant purchased the vehicle only on the reason that its service is available within 21 km of his residence. The Ettumanoor service centre usually return the vehicle without curing the defect on the reason that no spare parts are available. They are doing only water service and changing of oil and oil filter alone. At the time of purchase company offered 17 km mileage per litre, but it gets only below 10 km mileage per litre. The complainant further averred that, the air condition of the vehicle is not working. Due to the jam of the wheels, hand break and removed in its 4^th service. Now the vehicle is having no hand break systems. Like wise the complainant noticed the battery of the vehicle is not working, when he informed the matter to the Ettumanoor service centre as directed by them the complainant contacted the battery dealer with warranty card and at the time battery dealer said that he can replace it only when the show room entrusted the battery of their vehicle. Thereafter the complainant was not redressed

(Cont.....3)

-3-

while so, the complainant contacted the Ettumanoor service centre for further service and they replied that their service centre is also closed and directs the complainant to approach Pathanamthitta service centre for further service.

 

The complainant further stated that, the aim of the first opposite party is only to canvas the customer and sale their vehicle. They have not given proper after sale service. Almost all the authorised service points are closed one by one. The people who purchased the vehicle are going to pillar to post for servicing their vehicle. Now no service centre is running in Kerala. Under these circumstances, the complainant approached this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to take back these defective vehicle and repay Rs.10,40,000/- being the purchase price of the vehicle along with Rs.37,500/- being the registration expenses and Rs.7,00,000/- being the loss of income and compensation for mental agony.

 

Upon notices opposite parties entered appearance and opposite parties filed detailed reply version. In their version the additional second opposite party contented that they appoints their dealers on principal to principal basis and never deals with any customer directly. The warranty for the vehicle is one year as 50,000kms, which ever is earlier is available to customers who purchase the new vehicle. Opposite parties further contented that after proper testing and quality checks, the vehicle are sent to the dealers for the same. The mileage of the vehicle depends on the driving skills of the driver as well as the condition of the road. There is no defect in the vehicle and the complainant has been filed just to harass the opposite parties having failed to pay the loan instalments.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the problems mentioned in the complaint are not manufacturing defect but result of rash and negligent handling of the vehicle. The problems in the vehicle are normal wear and tear out of negligent use and irregular and improper servicing and improper maintainance by the complainant.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the complainant has not followed the instructions of the service manual and has not brought the vehicle for the regular servicing at the dealership. Therefore there is no

(Cont.....4)

-4-

deficiency in service and any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant and the expert was examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and Ext.P1 to Ext.P8 and Ext.C1 commission report were marked. Ext.P1 is the retail invoice, Ext.P2 is the copy of insurance certificate, Ext.P3 is the order booking form, Ext.P4 is the visiting card of the sale officer of the first opposite party, Ext.P5 is the copy of vehicle tax token, Ext.P6 is the bill issued by the first opposite party, Ext.P7 is the copy of pass book, Ext.P8 (s) is the copy of notices issued to the opposite parties with postal receipts, Ext.C1 is the commission report.

 

From the opposite parties side one Chandrasekharan, Regional Manager of the second opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 to Ext.R8 were marked. Ext.R1 is the list of service centres of the second opposite party, Ext.R2 to Ext.R6 are the copy of agreements between the second opposite party and authorised service centres, Ext.R7 is the Authorisation letter, Ext.R8 is the vehicle purchase details with the first opposite party.

 

Heard both sides,

 

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

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both the parties and had gone through the records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a vehicle on 03/07/14 from the second opposite party's Kattappana sale office by paying an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- manufactured by the second opposite party and marketed by the sub agent of the first opposite party. The vehicle model is CCML extreme VD. This vehicle is purchased for running it as a taxi to earn his livelihood. Complainant was a driver in profession and on the advice and on persuasion of one Shinulal Babu, the sales executives of the opposite parties Kattappana Branch, happened to purchase this vehicle. The said service officer arranged the vehicle loan also. At the time of purchase the service officer confirmed its after service. But when the complainant

(Cont.....5)

-5-

 

contacted the service centre for the first service of the vehicle, he came to know that, the service centre of the second opposite party is closed. Actually the complainant forced to purchase this vehicle only on the reason that, the service centre is situated only 21kms away from his residence. There was no other company service centre such a near place.

 

It is also an admitted fact that, from the first service onward complainant forced to take the vehicle for the authorised service centre of the second opposite party, at Ettumanoor which is more than 150 kms away from the place of the complainant. At there also no effective service was provided. The recurring defects of the vehicle which is discussed above in detail was not cured on the reason that the spare parts of the vehicle are not available there. It is also noted that from the day of purchase, the vehicle showed many defects such as low pulling, low mileage, defective in air conditioning system, defective hand break system, out of body painting and bubbles in the body, defect in fuel injunction pumps etc. Some of the defects are cured by the Ettumanoor service centre under warranty. But now also main defect such as low pulling, low mileage, defective battery etc are persisting. To cure the defect in hand break, the service centre removed the hand break system itself. It is also admitting fact that within one year all the problems are happened including the defect in the battery. From the deposition and proof affidavit it is seen that, within a short period of using the vehicle, the service centre of the Ettumanoor centre shut down. The next available service centre is at Pathanamthitta, which is a very long distance from the place of the complainant.

 

None of these allegation are denied by the opposite parties with clear and specific evidence. For convincing the Forum that their service centre are alive, the second opposite party produced copy of agreements with their some service agencies. But opposite parties miserably failed to substantiate that whether their service centre are still functioning or not.

 

In their reply version the second opposite party flatly denied the defect of the vehicle, which is stated in the complaint. But opposite parties has not raised any steps to find out the actual defect and to cure it to the satisfaction of the customers even after the receipt of the notice.

(Cont.....6)

-6-

 

For establishing his case, the Forum deputed an expert commission and the written request of the complainant, to brought a clear and specific report regarding to the defect of the vehicle. The expert commission filed report and it is marked as Ext.C1 and the expert commissioner was examined as PW2. As per Ext.C1 commission report, expert reported that all the defect which is stated in the complaint are proof affidavit are persisting at the date of inspection of the vehicle. As per the version of the complainant, the vehicle is now in a totally dead stage and the amount which he invested for this vehicle is totally lost. More over on enquiry it is learnt that almost all the authorised service centre of the second opposite party in Kerala are closed. Except the copy of agreement and deposition of DW1, the Regional Manager of the second opposite party, no plausible evidence is produced by the second opposite party to strengthen their plea.

 

On perusing the record of both parties, and by appreciating the evidence the Forum found that no proper after sale service was provided by the second opposite party to the complainant. The complainant being a taxi driver, he invested a huge amount for purchasing their vehicle, on the firm belief that he can meet his day to day expenses from plying this vehicle as a taxi. Due to the recurring defect in the vehicle and due to non availability of proper service centre, complainant has to suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that, no job cards are produced by either the first opposite party or the second opposite party to counter the allegation of the complainant, and to established that the vehicle is having normal wear and tear and having no service defect as stated in the complaint. Hence the Forum is of a firm belief that opposite parties are failed to produce the job card, because the service centre of Kattappana and Ettumanoor are closed and it is strengthening the allegation of the complainant.

 

On the basis of above discussion Forum is of a considered view that the complainant established the deficiency in service against the second opposite party, for not providing after sale service to the vehicle in question which is manufactured by them and repeatedly the car had gone to the garage for repair when the subject car was within its warranty period.

 

(Cont.....7)

 

-7-

Hence the complaint allowed. The Forum directed the second opposite party to replace the car in question or else the second opposite party is directed to take back the car and pay Rs. 10 Lakhs being the price of the vehicle. The second opposite party further directed to pay Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of June, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....8)

 

-8-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Manu A.C.

PW2 - Davis M.T.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - C.Chandrasekaran

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The retail invoice

Ext.P2 - The copy of insurance certificate

Ext.P3 - The order booking form

Ext.P4 - The visiting card of the sale officer of the first opposite party

Ext.P5 - The copy of vehicle tax token

Ext.P6 - The bill issued by the first opposite party

Ext.P7 - The copy of pass book

Ext.P8 (s) - The copy of notices issued to the opposite parties with postal

receipts

Ext.C1 - The commission report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The list of service centres of the second opposite party

Ext.R2 to Ext.R6 - The copy of agreements between the second opposite party

and authorised service centres

Ext.R7 - The Authorisation letter

Ext.R8 - The vehicle purchase details with the first opposite party.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT