SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Opposite Party seeking to get an order directing OP to pay compensation Rs.75,000/- to complainant along with refund of Rs. 6075 paid to the OP as extended warranty and Rs. 5,000 towards cost of the proceedings alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.
The case of complainant is that he had purchased a Chevrolet Beat diesel car (Model 2012) having Reg.No.KL13/Y8497 from the OP and as per the recommendation of OP, complainant had to subscribe extended warranty provided by the OP through their Kannur dealer German Motors. As per that complainant had paid Rs. 6,075 on 08/10/2014 to German Motors for extended warranty which is valid until 23/09/2017 and OP had issued receipt for the same. Complainant stated that he had brought the vehicle to German Motors for service due to some defect during October 2016, then it is understood that the German Motors had closed its show room and service centre without any intimation and without making an arrangement with any other dealer for doing work to the vehicle having extended warranty. Complainant alleged that due to the closing service centre of dealer at Kannur Germen Motors by the OP, complainant was forced to depend other local workshop man to clear defects of his car for which he had to spend Rs. 50,000 being the repairing charges to change steering and other wheel bearings etc. Complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 22/12/2016 and the same was accepted by OP on 28/12/2016 and send reply denying all allegations put forth by the complainant. Complainant alleged that the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence filed this complaint.
After service of notice, OP appeared to counsel filed its version admitting about the purchase of the car by the complainant contending that they may not be held vicariously liable for acts of omission and commission occurred on the part of selling dealer because their relationship any selling dealer is that of independent contractors and such parties being principal and agent respectively. OP further contended that the transaction or activity of retail sale are an activity falling within the exclusive domain of the selling dealer. OP contended that they have not given extended warranty and have no connection with closure of the service centre of German motors. OP denied the averment of complainant that the OP through M/s German motors has solicited with the complainant to go for extended warranty. According to OP they did not provide extended warranty and hence denied the receival of Rs. 6075 towards extended warranty from the complainant and never issued receipt acknowledging receipt of amount from complainant. OP further contended that German Motors has widely published through local dailies that with effect from 31st March 2016 they would cease to function and this OP has appointed a new service partner namely Makkah Service centre to cater to customers like that of the complainant in Kozhikode. OP further pleaded that they have service centers situate at many district and complainant could have visit any of those service centers for regular servicing of his vehicle. It is further pleaded that as per the condition of extended warranty, the owners of the vehicle should get the vehicle to have its servicing /maintenance as per the servicing/maintenance schedule prescribed. Further stated that the complainant reported for the periodical maintenance service on 07/10/2014 (11167Kms) and as per warranty condition next service should have been done at 21167KM/> 10/2015 whichever is earlier and the complainant hasn’t done this service. According to OP, complainant chose to report only on10th July 2017 at 16652Km then the extended warranty policy becomes get void and also German motors was functional till March 2016. Thus nothing prevented the complainant to report his vehicle with them in the said period. OP contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and stated that burden of proof of deficiency lies upon the complainant . OP prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
In order to substantiate the complainant averments, complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs have also filed affidavit evidence and produced some documents.
Both learned counsels of the complainant and OP filed written argument notes. We have gone through the documents produced from both sides and considering the submission in the argument notes of learned counsels.
The allegation of complainant is that as per the instruction from OP he had subscribed extended warranty of OP through their Kannur dealer German Motors after paying Rs. 6075 on 08/10/2014 and as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty, it is valid until 23/09/2017. It is further alleged that within the warranty period ie during October2016, for curing the defects of the vehicle, he had taken the vehicle to the service centre of German Motors, then he could know that the dealer of OP at Kannur ie German Motors show room and service centre had closed on March 2016 without any intimation.
According to the complainant the work of the vehicle he wanted to do was within the extended warranty, he ought to have got free service and benefits as per the terms and condition in the contended warranty. Since the service centre of the dealer of OP closed without any prior intimation and did not open other service centre by OP in Kannur, complainant constrained to depend other local workshop to clear the defects of the car. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting refund of Rs.6075 fee paid for extended warranty to OP, because the receipt was issued by OP along with compensation of Rs. 75,000/-.
On the other hand, OP vehemently contended that German Motors, Kannur was their dealer till February 2016. Further they have not provided any such extended warranty as alleged by the complainant and as such not received sum of Rs. 6,075 towards extended warranty and not issued receipt for that to complainant.
According to OP, they have principal to principal relationship with German Motors and they are not the agent of OP. Hence for any act of commission or omission done by German Motors, is not binding upon them and is not responsible. OP pleaded that there is no vicarious liability between dealer and manufacturer. So they are not liable either to pay compensation as alleged in the complaint or refund the fee amount of extended warranty received by German Motors. The undisputed facts in this case are that complainant purchased Chevrolet car from OP on 2012 model and complainant availed extended warranty up to 23/07/2017 and also defect happened within extended warranty period. It is also an admitted fact that the authorized service centre of OP at Kannur is M/s German Motors, Kannur. For substantiating the allegation of complainant that the extended warranty was issued by German Motors as per the direction of OP, produced Ext.A1 and A2. On perusal of Ext.A1 optional extended warranty and Ext.A2 receipt of 6,075 from the complainant dated 08/10/2014 for extended warranty amount in respect of vehicle KL13Y8497, we can reveal that both Ext.A1 and A2 are of M/s Chevrolet sales India Pvt. Ltd. (CSIPL) manufacturer of Chevrolet vehicles. It is an admitted fact that OP M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act 1956, a group company of M/s Chevrolet sales India Pvt. Ltd.
Further OP admitted that German Motors, Kannur are their dealer till Feburary 2016. Ext.A1 and A2 reveal that those were issued on 08/10/2014. Though Ext. A1 and Ext.A2 were issued by German Motors on 08/10/2014, those two documents are belonged to Chevrolet manufacturing company and the extended warranty was valid from 24/09/2015to 23/09/2017.
OP raised a contention that German Motors are their independent dealer up to February 2016 and since the extended warranty was given by German Motors an independent dealer has full responsibility. There is principal to principal relationship between OP and German Motors, hence the OP is not liable for acts of omission or commission on the part of selling dealer.
On clear perusal of Ext.A1and A2 it is obviously shows that the documents were issued with the consent of Chevrolet Company. Hence from the forgoing discussions we are of the view that OP cannot wash away their hands from their responsibility.
The next contention raised by OP is the defect in dispute was arised on October 2016, the German Motors has ceased their service centre from 31st March 2016 after given wide publication through local dailies. OP further stated that complainant should have done his service on 07/10/2015/21167Km whichever is earlier after the service on 07/10/2014. But complainant hasn’t done this service, he had reported to the service only on 10th July 2017 at 16652 Kms. So pleaded that complainant has violated the warranty condition more over the German Motors was operational till March 2016.
But on perusal of Retail cash memo of German Motors dated 11/07/2015 reveals that the car of complainant has taken to service on 11/07/2015, the mileage reading is 16652 KMS and done the running repair. Hence the above said contention of OP that complainant has not taken the vehicle for proper service cannot be taken into account. Further with regard to next contention that M/s German Motors has done wide publication for their closing of show room and service centre through local daily has not substantiate with material evidence.
The next contention raised by Op is that complainant had deviated and made the warranty terms and conditions null and void by carrying out repair work at an unauthorized workshop which is not recommended by the OP. According to OP though the service centre of M/s German Motors at Kannur was closed, they have appointed new service partner namely Makkah Service centre to customers in Kozhikode and also is in the process of identifying competent service partner in and around Kannur to customers. OP also give explanation that they are unable to specify any time frame for appointment and opening such service centre and till such time complainant is also at liberty to report to service centers situate at other district like Kollam, Trivandrum etc.
Here, complainant also admitted that he had done the work of the vehicle at an unauthorized workshop at Kannur because without any intimation to the customers, M/s German Motors has closed the show room and service centre at Kannur from March 2016. Hence he constrained to depend other local workshop men to clear the defects of the car.
It is admitted condition in the warranty that the vehicle has been serviced at prescribed intervals and maintained through Chevrolet Authorized Dealers only. It is also to be noted that here the dealer of OP without any intimation to its customers, closed their show room and service centre. The OP put forward other remedies for getting service to the customers, those remedies are not become practicable for urgent need to get service. More over there is not piece of evidence submitted by OP to show that those remedies and the fact of closing of service centre were informed to their customers through media. In producing pamphlets evidencing opening of service centre at Kozhikode and Kannur do not mean that the said fact came to know customers like complainant.
Taking into consideration all these facts we see no reason to blame complainant to avail service from an outside workshop to cure the defect of his car. OP pleaded that as per warranty conditions, beyond servicing and / or repairing defective parts in the vehicle, they do not undertake to replace the vehicle or reimburse the purchaser by payment of any money in respect of the vehicle purchased by them.
We the commission, therefore hold that complainant is entitled to get the benefit of extended warranty and through SMS or call without informing customers like complainant or without making any alternative arrangement at Kannur for getting service to the vehicle purchased from Chevrolet company, closed down the show room and service centre of the authorized dealer by OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. OP could have published at the service centre about the alternative arrangements. The approach of OP Company towards their customers after receiving fee for warranty and extended warranty that they are unable to specify any time frame for appointing and opening service centre is not a fair approach towards their customers.
For the reasons detailed above, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get relief from OP.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs. 6075 to complainant paid as extended warranty charge along with Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the mental agony, monetary loss happened to the complainant and cost of proceedings of this case. The OP shall comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution proceedings against OP under the provision in the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
Ext.A1 optional extended warranty issued on 08/10/2014,
Ext.A2 Receipt of 6,075 from the complainant dated 08/10/2014 for extended warranty
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(min)
/Forward by order/
Senior Superintendent
