IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 25th day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.116/06 (Filed on 22.06.2006) Between: Prakash. K. George @ Prakash Inchathanam, Inchathanathu House, Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv.Anil Bhaskar) .... Complainant. And: 1. The Managing Director, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., S.H. Mount P.O., Kottayam-686006. (By Adv. G. Ajith Kumar) 2. The Branch Manager, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. 3. The Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd., Palam, Gurgaon – 122 012. ( By Adv. V. Santharam & K. Haridas) 4. The Manager, Indusind Bank, Sudarsan Building, 92 (Old No.86), Chamiers Road, Chennai – 600 018. 5. Mr. Hanifa, Sales Executive, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a professional Viediographer having much reputation in the said field. While so the complainant had purchased a Maruti Omni EMPISTD BS3 manufactured by the 3rd opposite party through 1st and 2nd opposite parties on 18.3.06 with finance from the 4th opposite party by paying ` 2,37,473. The said purchase was made on the basis of the canvassing of the 5th opposite party. On using the said vehicle the complainant found many manufacturing defects to the said vehicle. The major defects are:- (a) the vehicle is not running smoothly as expected from a brand new vehicle due to automatic application of break system. (b) the vehicle is having an unusual vibration while the vehicle is moving in the top gear. (c) the engine of the vehicle is not working properly and perfectly. (d) there is defects in back spring leaf and central bolt. (e) the doors of the vehicle is not working properly (f) the viper of the vehicle is not functioning. 3. Because of the above said defects the purpose for which the vehicle was purchased, cannot be fulfilled. The pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle was not properly conducted. The vehicle was not fit to be delivered to a customer. The above said complaints of the vehicle has been properly brought to the notice of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. But they have not redressed the complainant’s grievances. The behaviour of the officials are in arrogant and humiliating manner which gives an impression that the complainant shall not made any complaints in future and has to the keep mum regarding the complaints of the vehicle. The present vehicle cannot be used as a vehicle, which runs properly. So the complainant was compelled to hire another vehicle for ` 1,000 per day for 94 days to accomplish his duties. The treatment given to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 to 3 has in fact lowered his dignity and reputation among the general public. The 4th opposite party, the financier is harassing the complainant for repayment of the vehicle loan. A legal notice was sent to the opposite party 1 to 3 calling upon them to compensate the damages suffered to the complainant. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order against opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the complainant with a brand new Maruthi Omni of the same brand he purchased or to return the price of the vehicle along with compensation of ` 1,94,000 under various heads along with cost of this proceedings. 4. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: The allegation that the 5th opposite party induced the complainant for purchasing the vehicle is false. All the benefits at the time of the purchase of the vehicle are given to the complainant. The new equipments will not have any complaint. The complainant had used the vehicle in a rough manner for election duty as directed by the Election Commission may be the alleged complaints of the vehicle. The first opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The vehicle was delivered after pre-delivery inspection and the vehicle was delivered in good condition. The vehicle is to be produced within one month or 1000 Kms. whichever is earlier for the first free service. But the complainant has not so far produced the vehicle for any of the free services or for other services. The vehicle was never brought to the opposite parties 1 and 2 or no complaints have been reported. The allegation that there are plenty of manufacturing defects is false. No grievance has been complained of by the complainant. The vehicle was not so far registered. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable to the complainant, as they have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The main contentions in the version of third opposite party is as follows: The liability of the third opposite party is as per the sale contract as set out under clause 3 of the Owner’s Manual and service booklet and they have not violated any of the terms and conditions specified in the Owner’s Manual and service booklet. The complainant has failed to place any material on record for substantiating his claim for compensation against the third opposite party. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and they are not supplying the vehicles directly to any individual customer. The complainant has made only vague and false allegations against the opposite parties. The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant in perfect roadworthy condition after pre-delivery inspection. The complainant has failed to set out a single instance evidencing refusal on the part of the opposite parties to provide warranty service as per the terms and conditions. The alleged claims are beyond the purview of the warranty condition. The opposite parties are always ready and willing to provide warranty benefits to the complainant as offered at the time of sale. This complaint is a frivolous and vexatious complaint and hence no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the third opposite party. With the above contentions, the third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. 6. The remaining parties i.e. opposite parties 2, 4 and 5 are exparte. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only question to be decided is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DWs.1, 2 and 3 and Exts. A1 to A12 and Ext.C1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 9. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the vehicle purchased by the complainant on 18.03.2006 from the opposite parties have many defects including manufacturing defects from the date of purchase onwards. The defects were properly brought to the notice of the opposite parties. But they have not rectified the defects of the vehicle or replaced the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant could not use or registered the vehicle so far and the vehicle is still with him without plying on the road. According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case against the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and filed certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A12. Ext.A1 is the copy of reply notice dated 05.05.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant’s Advocate in reply to the complainant’s Advocate notice. Ext.A2 is the Advocate notice dated 12.04.2006 issued by the complainant’s Advocate to the third opposite party. Ext.A3 is the tax invoice dated 18.03.2006 in respect of the vehicle in question issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the bill dated 14.03.2006 for ` 1,000 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the Form No.22 dated 09.02.2006 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the temporary registration certificate dated 18.03.2006 of the complainant’s vehicle. Ext.A7 is the insurance policy certificate in respect of the vehicle in question. Ext.A8 is the Sale Certificate dated 18.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the vehicle in question. Ext.A9 is the tax invoice dated 20.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A10 is another tax invoice dated 18.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A11 is the receipt dated 18.03.2006 issued by the 4th opposite party for collecting an amount of ` 4,683 from the complainant as the EMI amount in connection with the complainant’s vehicle loan. Ext.A12 is the notice dated 27.09.2006 issued by Chithira Automobiles, Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta to the complainant requesting the complainant to remove the complainant’s vehicle from their work shop. Ext.C1 is marked through the complainant and it is the report of the Commissioner for his inspection of the vehicle in question. 11. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant had complained certain complaints of the vehicle after the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant and on getting the complaint, they had deputed their technician who had inspected the vehicle more than once and found that the vehicle had no manufacturing defects and the minor complaints noted are repairable at the time of free service of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. But the complainant had never brought the vehicle to the authorised service centre so far. Again, the complainant complained certain complaints vide Ext.A2 Advocate Notice. A reply to Ext.A2 was given by the opposite parties vide Ext.A1. In Ext.A1, opposite parties requested the complainant to produce the vehicle at their authorised service centre at Kottayam. But he had not brought the vehicle as requested by the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant had not registered the vehicle with RTO so far. 12. According to the opposite parties, the said vehicle had no manufacturing defects, but there are some minor complaints which can be rectified at the time of free service as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Inspite of all these things, the complainant was reluctant to produce the vehicle before the authorised service centre so far even for the free services too. In the circumstances, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. 13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the authorised representative of the first opposite party, the Asst. Manager of Maruti Service, Kottayam and the Commissioner who had prepared Ext.C1 report were examined as DWs.1 to 3. 14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute regarding the transaction. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the vehicle had manufacturing defects from the date of purchase onwards and the opposite parties have not redressed the grievances of the complainant irrespective of the complainant’s request. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle in question had no manufacturing defects and they had deputed technician for ascertaining the complaints alleged by the complainant more than once. During their inspection, they found some minor complaints, which are repairable during free service and requested the complainant to bring the vehicle to the authorised service centre. But the complainant had not produced the vehicle for rectifying the minor complaints and the vehicle is not even registered with the RTO so far. 15. In the nature of the dispute, an expert opinion was required. So, for substantiating the complainant’s contentions, the complainant had filed an application for appointing an Expert Commissioner to inspect the vehicle in question, which was allowed by this Forum. On the basis of the order of this Forum, an experienced and qualified mechanic inspected the vehicle and submitted his report, which is marked as Ext.C1. The mechanic who had prepared Ext.C1 report was also examined as DW3. On a reading of Ext.C1, the vehicle in question had manufacturing defects and other defects. But the deposition of DW3 is not corroborative with Ext.C1. For preparing Ext.C1, what DW3 had done is that he had driven the vehicle about 28 Kms. But he had not opened any of the engine parts or other mechanical parts for ascertaining the alleged defects of the vehicle. He had admitted the same in his deposition. The relevant portion of DW3’s deposition is as follows:- “ZoImew HmSmsX InS¡p¶ hml\w HmSn¡pt¼m{]h#175;\ £aX Ipdhmbncn¡pw. Cu hml\¯nepw AX\p`hs¸«p..............b{´`mK§Agn¨p t\m¡n ]cntim[n¨n«nÃ...........F´mWv bYm#176;{]iv\w F¶dnbWsa¦n F³Pn³ Agn¨p ]cntim[n¨p t\m¡Ww. Cu tIknse hml\w A{]Imcw Agn¨p ]cntim[n¨n«nÓ. 16. From the above said deposition of DW3, the opinion and the report in Ext.C1 cannot be relied upon for the following reasons. The vehicle was purchased in March 2006 and the inspection was conducted in June 2009. As per the averment of the complainant, the vehicle was kept idle from April 2006 onwards and DW3 had not opened any of the engine parts for ascertaining whether there is any manufacturing defect. Apart from the above said weak evidence of DW3, there is nothing to show that the vehicle in question had manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. At the same time, it is clear from the materials on record that the complainant had not produced his vehicle before the authorised service centre for servicing so far. The complainant’s argument that he had brought the vehicle before Chithira Automobiles, Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta, an authorised workshop of the opposite parties for servicing. 17. In order to substantiate the said argument, he is relying on Ext.A12. But on a perusal of Ext.A12, his contention is not sustainable, as the content of Ext.A12 does not support the complainant’s argument. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has not brought his vehicle before the authorised service centre at least for the free services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty even inspite of the request of the opposite parties vide Ext.A1 reply notice. Without availing the free service facilities and without establishing the alleged manufacturing defects either before this Forum or before the opposite parties, how can this Forum finds a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. In the circumstances, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. However, this order will not prejudice the complainant’s liberty to get the vehicle serviced by the opposite parties and in that event, the opposite parties are directed to take a lenient view towards the complainant. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of October, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Prakash. K. George. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of reply notice dated 05.05.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant’s Advocate. A2 : Advocate notice dated 12.04.2006 issued by the complainant’s Advocate to the third opposite party. A3 : Tax invoice dated 18.03.2006 in respect of the complainant’s vehicle. A4 : Bill dated 14.03.2006 for ` 1,000 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant. A5 : Form No.22 dated 09.02.2006 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant. A6 : Temporary registration certificate dated 18.03.2006 of the complainant’s vehicle. A7 : Insurance policy certificate in respect of the complainant’s vehicle. A8 : Sale Certificate dated 18.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. A9 : Tax invoice dated 20.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. A10 : Another tax invoice dated 18.03.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A11 : Receipt dated 18.03.2006 issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. A12 : Notice dated 27.09.2006 issued by Chithira Automobiles, Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Biju. T. Jacob. DW2 : Biju. M. DW3 : George. P. Mathukutty. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Court Exhibits: C1 : Commissioner’s Report. (By Order) Sebior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) Prakash. K. George @ Prakash Inchathanam, Inchathanathu House, Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) The Managing Director, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., S.H. Mount P.O., Kottayam-686 006. (3) The Branch Manager, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd., Palam, Gurgaon – 122 012. (5) The Manager, Indusind Bank, Sudarsan Building, 92 (Old No.86), Chamiers Road, Chennai – 600 018. (6)Mr. Hanifa, Sales Executive, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd.,Pathanamthitta Branch. (7) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
