By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the vehicle or if it is not possible replace the vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the inconveniences caused to the complainant.
2. Brief of the complaint:- On 22.03.2012 the complainant purchased One CHEVROLET BEAT LS TCDi car from the showroom of opposite party No.2 and the vehicle delivered through opposite party No.3 and the said vehicle is manufactured by opposite party No.1. Opposite parties assured 3 year warranty and also assured life long service of the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No.3. Later on 19.03.2015 the complainant had paid Rs.4,100/- to the opposite party No.3 for extend the warranty for one more year, thus the warranty is extended till 22.03.2016. Thereafter the complainant had conducted all the free services from opposite party No.3's service centre. From the date of purchase onwards the complainant had noticed some problems on the vehicle that is low engine pulling, mileage shortage etc on every occasion the defects were cured by the opposite party No.3. But later in the month of February 2016 the vehicle became defective due to non pulling and the vehicle is not moving properly while giving acceleration. Then the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for rectifying the defects. Opposite party No.3 said that the vehicle is having major complaints and demanded Rs.50,000/- for the repair works. Subsequently the complainant informed this facts to opposite party No.1 and 2 but they are also not solved the grievances of the complainant. At present the vehicle is kept idle at the house of complainant. Even though the vehicle is on warranty, the opposite parties demanded Rs.50,000/- as repair cost. Hence the complainant approached before this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and they appeared and filed version.
4. Brief version of opposite party No.1:- 1st opposite party submitted that the present complaint deserve to be dismissed on the sole ground that warranty conditions which were part of the owners manual and agreed by the both parties. This opposite party is only bound to repair/rectify the defective part of the vehicle and all warranty claims expire at the end of the warranty period. The obligation under the new vehicle warranty is limited to the repair of the new motor vehicle at No charge. For the parts replaced during the said repair same warranty applies until the end of the new vehicle warranty period. Liability of this opposite party under this new vehicle warranty is limited to the value of the service, repairs/replacement of parts found to be defective within the warranty period. Beyond service and or repairing defective parts in the vehicle, this opposite party No.1 does not undertake to replace the vehicle or reimburse the purchaser by payment of any money in respect of the vehicle purchased by them. This opposite party further stated that the complainant misunderstood the terms of the warranty by expecting this opposite party to make good the loss for ever. It is stated that not all services and repairs, as is obvious, can be provided under the warranty protection. Repairs and services arising on account of accidents/mishaps, improper maintenance, negligence, improper driving/handling etc cannot be provided under the warranty cover. This opposite party denied that the complainant opted for extended warranty because this opposite party's record by no means reveals so and per the centralized vehicle history available at their side this vehicle did not report with any of their notified service centre after March 2015. Hence opposite party stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Brief Version of opposite party No.2 and 3:- This opposite parties admitted the sale of the vehicle on 22.03.2012 and as per the conditions of the warranty the warranty expired after three years ie on 22.03.2015 and this complaint is filed on March 2016 is not maintainable and the complaint is barred from raising allegations of manufacturing defects and the complainant cannot make any claim because this complaint is with regard to the manufacturing defects of this vehicle. The complainant in this case had purchased the vehicle mentioned in the complaint from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized dealers of vehicle manufactured by General Motors of India. The vehicle came with a warranty for 3 years or 100000 kilometers which ever comes first. During the time he used the vehicle, he never made any complaints and whenever any complaints were reported, these were looked into and rectified as per the warranty issued by the manufacturer. The details regarding the complaints given by the complainant are available in the records maintained by these opposite parties. He had never reported any major complaints showing that the vehicle had any manufacturing defects. The complainant has also not availed the extended warranty as claimed. Though he had paid the amount, he cancelled the same and the said amount was remitted to the bank account of the complainant on 15.02.2015. Hence the warranty expired in the year 2015 and there was no warranty since then. It is submitted that these opposite parties were winding up their branches and on hearing this news, several customers had come to them and asked from where their vehicles would get serviced. These persons had been informed that the 1st opposite party would make adequate arrangements for the future repairs of the vehicle. The complainant also was similarly informed and he had threatened that he would see that the opposite parties were taught a lesson if they closed their branch at Wayanad. The Wayanad branch was formally closed on 15.02.2016 and immediately thereafter this complaint had been filed. The complainant has no cause of action. If at all the vehicle had any manufacturing defects, the same would have been raised then and there instead of waiting till the expiry of the warranty. The complaint is highly belated, made up of vague allegations and is only to be dismissed.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents were marked. Opposite party No.1 not adduced oral evidence but submitted petition to serve questionnaire to them by the other side. Then as per the I.A they have filed reply to the questionnaire. Opposite party No.2 and 3's witness present and examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 document marked subject to proof. Ext.A1 is the Receipt of warranty extended dated 19.03.2015. Ext.A2 is the Order Form for car maintenance dated 05.12.2016.
7. Heard both parties.
8. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect with respect to the disputed vehicle?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?.
3. If yes Relief and Cost.
9. Point No.1 & 2:- Complainant alleged that there is low engine pulling, mileage shortage etc.. were noticed with respect to the disputed vehicle. From the date of purchase onwards. On every occasion the defects were cured by opposite party No.3. Finally in the month of February 2016 complainant approached opposite party No.3 with the problem that the vehicle is not moving properly while giving acceleration, when the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for repair the vehicle they demanded Rs.50,000/- as repair charge even though the vehicle was under warranty coverage. To prove this allegations complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents were marked. As per Ext.A1 complainant paid Rs.4,100/- to the complainant in order to extend the service warranty of the vehicle for one more year. But opposite party produced Ext.B1 document (Computer generated Account Statement) stating that the warranty of one more year has not extended, even if they have accepted the premium it was returned to the complainant through account transfer (NEFT). To substantiate the allegation complainant has not produced the Warranty Certificate for the period of 2015-16. So as complainant failed to produce any job Card or service/repair details showing that the disputed vehicle was repaired many times earlier with the alleged complaint or any defects, he could have very well produce the owner cum service Manuel to prove the repair/service details. As per Ext.A2 on 09.01.2017 complainant entrusted the disputed vehicle to a third party but they were not arrayed as a party in this case. More over opposite party No.1 contented that as per the information from their records and their centralized vehicle history this vehicle did not report with any of their notified service centre after March 2015.
10. One Expert Commissioner appointed by this Forum inspected the vehicle and his inspection report was marked as Ext.C1. Perusal of Ext.C1 we couldn't find any abnormality or manufacturing defect with respect to this vehicle except that of slight low pulling power. Commissioner has not reported any service defects with regard to this vehicle. Complainant has not filed any objection to Commissioner Report. Complainant further argued that during the pendency of the case, Opposite party No.3's office wind up without any intimation now he was forced to bring the vehicle to the service center at Kozhikode. But opposite party No.2 and 3 argued that before winding up the branches and on hearing this news, several customers had come to them and asked from where their vehicles would get serviced. These persons had been informed that the 1st opposite party would make adequate arrangements for the future repairs of the vehicle. The Wayanad branch was formally closed on 15.02.2016 and immediately thereafter this complaint had been filed.
11. On going through the entire evidence and records, it appears that the allegation about the manufacturing defect stands not proved through documentary evidence. So as the allegation that the vehicle is on Warranty after the expiry of 3 years from the date of purchase also stands not proved. Complainant admits that he has received the amount already paid towards consideration for extended warranty. Hence in our opinion this vehicle has been expired warranty on 22.03.2015. Now the vehicle is not under warranty coverage. Hence there is no need of opposite parties to repair it on free of cost. But opposite parties reported that they are ready and willing to put the issue to a quietus by ensuring that defects if any really exist in the vehicle would become things of the past.
12. On an overall evaluation of the pleadings and record we opine that the vehicle in issue expires warranty on 22.03.2015, complainant has not proved otherwise. There is no manufacturing defect proved as reported by the Expert Commissioner and complainant has not produced the vehicle to any of opposite party's service centre after closing of opposite party No.3's office at Kalpetta. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed. But as a consumer and customer of opposite party he is entitled to get service and repair work from the opposite parties service centre on chargeable basis. Point No.1 and 2 found accordingly.
13. Point No.3:- Since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice proved, No Order as to Cost and Compensation.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to rectify/repair the defects if any of the vehicle on chargeable basis.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of August 2017.
Date of Filing:19.03.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shine. Secretary, Mananthavady Co-operative press.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Anoop Jose (Affidavit). Manager (After Sales), German Motors, Kozhikode.
OPW2. Ramesan. B. Manager, German Motors.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt. Dt:19.03.2015.
A2. Order Form for Car Maintenance. Dt:09.01.2017.
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:18.11.2016.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Account Statement.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
