BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1142/2012

DATED THIS THE 16^th SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -   

                                                Lingamurthy.T.A.

                                                S/o. Late T.S.Appajappa,

                                                Aged about 72 years,

                                                Residing at No.53, 4^th block,

                                                4^th stage, Basaveshwara nagar,

                                                Bangalore-79

                                                Presently staying at

                                                JSS Hiriyara Mane,

                                                Suthur Sree Kshetra,

                                                Nanjanagudu ta1uk,

                                                Mysore district -29                  

V/s

Opposite parties           

1.     The Managing Director,

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd,

Regd. Office at

Chandrapura Industrial Estate,

Halol-389351

Dist: Panchamahals,

Gujarat State, India

2.     The Manager,

M/s. Sundaram Motors,

(Division of T.V.Sundram Iyengar and sons Ltd, Madurai)

No.107, Kasturba Road,

Bangalore-01

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs no.1 and 2, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs no.1 and 2 to return the entire amount of Rs.16,89,720=00 and to pay Rs.2,50,000=00 towards damages and to grant such other relief under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant is an electrical engineer aged about 71 years and he has purchased a car manufactured by the 1^st OP called Chevrolet Cruze Vcdiltz bearing engine no.Z20S1436686K from the 2^nd OP on 28-5-2011 under invoice no.159. The complainant has paid ex-show room price of Rs.13,87,502=00 to the said vehicle, Rs.38,181=00 as insurance and Rs.2,61,822=00 as Road Tax as life tax and Rs.8,778=00 as registration charge and Rs.2,000=00 as STD charges, totally comes around Rs.16,98,283=00. In the said amount Rs.12,093=00 was discounted and net amount of Rs.16,86,190=00 was paid for the said vehicle. Subsequently, the said vehicle was registered vide Reg. no.KA-02/MF-5067 by the jurisdictional RTO office, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The OPs have given a warranty for a period of three years from the date of purchase to the said vehicle. The complainant had taken a car loan of Rs.7,00,000=00 from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd bank for the purpose of purchasing the said vehicle. The said vehicle was duly insured by ICICI Lombard Insurance Company vide policy no.3001/65027554/00/000 for a period from 31-5-2011 to 30-5-2012. The complainant is an experienced driver of four wheeler vehicles, and he owned four wheeler vehicles from1983 at first Herald Car. Subsequently in the year 1993 and 1997 he owned Maruthi 800, in the year 2003 he was having Assent Haundi and in the year 2007 he purchased TATA Indica and still he is having the said vehicles. No one can find fault with complainant’s driving skills and the complainant is having valid driving licence since 1983. Since, M/s. General Motors Pvt. Ltd, is a world’s reputed company and out of confidence on OP no.1 believing that car manufactured by 1^st OP Company is excellent and reliable, complainant has purchased the said vehicle with the financial help from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Bank. The said vehicle started giving problems from the beginning which was noticed by the complainant, being experienced driver, however he thought that after some time it will adjust. Once on 28-8-2011 on Sunday complainant was travelling from Mangalore to Bangalore in between just 25 km away from Mangalore, the said vehicle was stopped and complainant could not operate the clutch, then the problem was communicated to the OPs being the authorized people. The said vehicle was towed by Frontline Automobile, for repair and replaced the clutch system and delivered the said vehicle after four days by collecting Rs.2,330=00 as towed charges from the complainant, then the complainant drove the car on 1-9-2011 to Bangalore residence. Due to sudden problem given by the said vehicle, the entire work as per complainant’s plan was defeated which caused inconvenience and the complainant had to waste his time in Mangalore till he got the delivery of the vehicle and he could not complete his work at Mangalore. On 19-9-2012 after returning from Mangalore, the complainant has given the said car for second service to M/s. Sundaram Motors, Bangalore and it was informed by the Technician in the service station that the clutch system has been failed again and emitting smoke and bad smell from the clutch. The said recurring incident made complainant disappoint. Then the complainant has sent email dated 22-8-2011 addressed to 1^st OP by complaining the problem faced by him and expressed his disappointment in using the said vehicle and its manufacturing defects. The complainant has also mentioned the oral complaint through phone vide complaint no.24067 dated 20-8-2011 to Gurgaon. The said email duly replied by the 1^st OP on 23-9-2011 wherein they have promised that the 1^st OP had understood the feedback on the said vehicle which will help them to investigate the cause for the said clutch problem persisted in the said vehicle. However, the said vehicle was repaired by replacing the entire clutch system and delivered after one week. From that day to till date neither of the OPs have taken any initiative or action for investigating the cause for manufacturing defects in particular clutch problem of the said vehicle and the OPs have not cured the defect till date. When the complainant was going from Sakaleshpura to Hassan once again the said vehicle stopped in between 17 km away from Hassan on 19-11-2011 and he was immediately informed to OPs authorized people at Bangalore, then Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Mysore has sent their men and taken the vehicle to Mysore for its repair and then at the service station it is found and informed to complainant that once again the clutch system has failed and required to be replaced. After the said incidents, the complainant has issued a legal notice to both OPs and the said notice was duly served on both OPs. The OPs have not chosen to reply to the said legal notice, but the OPs representatives have personally met the complainant and convinced him to take back and use the vehicle from Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Mysore Since they have replaced the entire clutch system of the said vehicle and assured that the said problem will not be repeated any more and representative of OPs have also promised the complainant for extending warranty on the said vehicle for one year without setting any precedent. Mr.Sudhir Malhotra Director has written a letter confirming the said promise by his letter dated 28-12-2011. Believing in the assurance of OPs and also changing of the entire clutch system of the said vehicle, the complainant had taken back the vehicle from the Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Mysore and started using the same for few days. But suddenly once again the said vehicle stopped with the same clutch problems. Thereafter the complainant had to tow the said vehicle to Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Mysore on 29-2-2012. Thereafter, once again they have done the service by replacing clutch plate assembly etc. and then requested and assured the complainant to take it so that now onwards the said problem will not be repeated, and then the complainant once again with the good faith has taken the said vehicle on 22-3-2012 and started using for the same. By surprise and shocked complainant once again the said vehicle broke down with the same clutch problem. Then the complainant took the said vehicle to Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd at Bangalore. Now the said vehicle is still with the OPs authorized service station, Bangalore, so the OPs are jointly and severally liable and responsible for all kinds of detriment of the vehicle arising out of or in the course of its unlawful abandonment to the said vehicle, since it is in their custody and possession. Now the complainant has decided that there is no meaning in getting the said vehicle repaired and use it. The said vehicle has manufacturing defect with cannot be cured or solved by repeated repairs or changing the entire clutch system. Hence the present complaint is filed.

  3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed version separately:

4. The averments of version of the 1^st OP can be stated as under:

The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. As may be seen from the records of vehicle history and maintenance, the vehicle while covering its first 20,000 kilometers has suffered damages to its clutch pressure plate on about three occasions. Nothing could be more unfair than the complainant’s allegations. On each occasion that services have been required on the clutch mechanism, the clutch pressure plate has been found to be burnt and having scorch marks. Such burn and scorch marks on the clutch pressure plate are a tell-tale sign that the clutch is in the habit of being kept pressed for far too long in one go. Keeping the clutch pressed for far too long in one go is wrong driving habit amounting to abuse of the clutch and is bound to cause damage to the clutch mechanism. The damage suffered to the clutch mechanism is not on account of any manufacturing defect in the clutch mechanism but on account of incorrect driving habit in keeping the clutch pressed for far too long in one go which causes damage to the clutch pressure plate and related parts. Owning a number of horses does not ipso facto mean that the owner of such horses is a good rider. A person may own a number of horses and be a bad rider at the same time. Owning a number of vehicles does not conclusively establish that such owner is himself a skilful driver. Even assuming the complainant has 2 - 3 other vehicles and holds a valid driving license that does not in any way mean that the complainant is a perfect driver and is incapable of having any wrong or incorrect driving habit. The complainant’s contention of owning other vehicles and having a valid driving license, even assuming the same does not in any way foreclose and preclude what has otherwise been found to be the case. The nature of damages found on the clutch pressure plate, namely the burning and scorch marks on it, on the face of it establishes abuse of the clutch mechanism in keeping it pressed abnormally long in one go. If the complainant seeks to refute the same, then onus lies on the complainant to produce credible, reliable evidence from neutral quarters refuting the same. In the absence of such credible, reliable evidence from neutral quarters, the allegations of the complainant of the damages to the clutch mechanism being caused by manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to mention in this respect that despite the damages to the clutch mechanism being caused on the face of it, as revealed by the burn and scorch marks on the clutch pressure plate, the damages in question on each occasion has been cured and rectified by free of cost services as a matter of goodwill to the customer- complainant. The allegations made in para no.6 to 17 of the complaint are denied and refuted, there is no manufacturing defect whatsoever in the vehicle. The position on the fact of it, is of damage to the clutch pressure plate which is invariably on account of keeping the clutch pressed abnormally long in one go as a matter of wrongful driving habit. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The averments of aversion of the 2^nd OP can be stated as under:

The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. It is true that, the complainant purchased the vehicle by obtaining financial assistance. It is only the 1^st OP, the manufacture of the vehicle who has given the warranty; warranty does not cover moving parts and parts which are subjected to wear and tear. The clutch plate and other parts of the clutch wear out rapidly if and only if the vehicle is driven with the clutch pedal pressed during driving. It is obvious that, the complainant has adopted unscientific driving methods by keeping the clutch pressed which resulted in clutch wear out and breakdown. The 2^nd OP is not responsible for it. Though not covered under warranty it was replaced as a goodwill it was replaced as a warranty claim by the 2^nd OP with the prior approval of the manufacturer. On 28-9-2011 the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after road testing it and recorded his satisfaction and he was not charged for the repairs and the spare parts used. The cause of the defect is the unscientific driving method adopted by the complainant and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is true that, the 2^nd OP is in receipt of the notice referred in the complaint. The 2^nd OP is not aware of the break down of the vehicle and this OP is in no way liable or responsible for the situation in which the complainant finds himself. The 2^nd OP cannot be foisted with any liability as claimed in the relief portion of the complaint and the complainant has not undergone any agony, mental or otherwise. No cause of action has arisen to file the complaint against the 2^nd OP. The complainant has filed this complaint against the 2^nd OP without any basis, so the complaint is not maintainable. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost against the 2^nd OP.

6. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs no.1 and 2, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle supplied to him and the OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, in not rectifying the mistake in the vehicle as stated in the complaint?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          8. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced 21 documents which are marked as Ex-C1 to Ex-C21.  On the other hand, one Damanjeet Singh, who being the automobile engineer working in the 1^st OP has filed his affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of the 1^st OP and produced two documents which are marked as Ex-R1/A and Ex-R1/B; and one M.D.Ramesh who being the Business head working in the 2^nd OP has filed his affidavit on behalf of the 2^nd OP and produced no documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

9. One Lingamurthy.T.A, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he is an electrical engineer aged about 71 years and he has purchased a car manufactured by the 1^st OP called Chevrolet Cruze Vcdiltz bearing engine no.Z20S1436686K from the 2^nd OP on 28-5-2011 under invoice no.159 and the said vehicle was delivered on 2-6-2011 and he has paid ex-show room price of Rs.13,87,507=00 including VAT. It comes to Rs.16,98,238=00 including insurance and road tax, registration charges etc. In the said amount Rs.12,093=00 was discounted and net amount of Rs.16,86,190=00 was paid for the vehicle  and registered vide Reg. no.KA-02/MF-5067 by RTO, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The OPs have given a warranty for a period of three years from the date of purchase to the said vehicle. He has taken a loan of Rs.7,00,000=00 from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd bank for purchasing the said vehicle. The said vehicle was duly insured by ICICI Lombard Insurance from 31-5-2011 to 30-5-2012. He is an experienced driver of four wheeler vehicles, and he is holding a valid driving license since 1983 and he is having a Herald Car, Maruthi 800, Assent Haundi and TATA Indica and still he has purchased the said vehicles from the OP. The vehicle purchased by him from the OP started giving problems from the beginning, however he thought that after some time it will adjust. Once on 28-8-2011 while he was travelling from Mangalore to Bangalore in between, the vehicle was stopped and he could not operate the clutch, the said problem was informed to the OPs and thereafter the vehicle was towed by Frontline Automobile for repair and they have replaced the clutch system and delivered the vehicle after four days by collecting Rs.2,330=00 as towed charges, then he drove the car on 1-9-2011 to Bangalore residence. Due to sudden problem given by the said vehicle, the entire work as per plan was defeated and he had to waste his time in Mangalore till he got the delivery of the vehicle and he could not complete his work at Mangalore. On 19-9-2011 after returning from Mangalore, he has given the said car for second service to M/s. Sundaram Motors, Bangalore and it was informed by the Technician in the service station that the clutch system has been failed again and emitting smoke and bad smell from the clutch. The said recurring incident made him disappoint. On 22-8-2011 he had sent an email to the 1^st OP by complaining the problem faced and expressed his disappointment in using the said vehicle and its manufacturing defects. He has also mentioned the oral complaint through phone vide complaint no.24067 dated 20-8-2011. The said email duly replied by the 1^st OP. However, the said vehicle was repaired by replacing the entire clutch system and delivered after one week. From that day to till date neither of the OPs have taken any initiative or action for investigating the cause for manufacturing defects in particular clutch problem of the said vehicle and the OPs have not cured the defect till date. On 19-11-2011 he was going from Sakaleshpura to Hassan again the said vehicle was stopped in between 17 km away from the Hassan and the said break down was immediately informed to OPs and the vehicle was taken by men sent by Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Mysore and it is informed that once again the clutch system has failed and required to be replaced. He has issued a legal notice on 8-12-2011 to both OPs by calling upon to refund the entire amount with compensation for deficiency of service, but the OPs did not reply to the said notice, but the representatives of the OPs came and took back the vehicle and replaced the entire clutch system of the said vehicle and assured that the said problem will not be repeated any more and promised to extend one year warranty period without setting any precedent. Believing in the assurance of OPs, he took back the vehicle from the Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Mysore and started using the same for few days. Then suddenly once again the said vehicle stopped with the same clutch problems and then he had to tow the said vehicle to Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Mysore on 29-2-2012 and once again they have done the service by replacing clutch plate assembly and assured, now onwards the said problem will not be repeated, and he took the vehicle once again on 22-3-2012 and started using for the same. But once again the said vehicle broke down with the same clutch problem. Then he took the said vehicle to Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd at Bangalore. Now the said vehicle is still with the OPs authorized service station, Bangalore, and the said service station persons have not informed him about progress of the vehicle till date. He being the elderly person could not sustain this kind of recurring problem of clutch in the said vehicle, the said repeated problem defeated and troubled his journey and made him to waste time and money by causing serious mental strain and agony. Again he decided that, there is no meaning in getting the said vehicle repaired and use it, the said vehicle has a manufacturing defect which cannot be cured. Once again he got issued a legal notice dated 20-4-2012 and the OPs gave reply denying the contents of the notice. After repeated clutch problem of the said vehicle, it became useless and not trustworthy to use the same any more on the road by him. So, he has decided not to pay insurance for the said vehicle by further renewal of the policy for which the OPs are jointly and severally liable to take care. Since he lost all hopes and confidence on the 1^st OP, and he has no interested to take any alternative new vehicle of the same model. The OPs failure and neglect of solving the said problem inspite of sufficient time and opportunity amounts to deficiency in service, so both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, so the present complaint is filed, so the complaint be allowed and pass an order as prayed for.

10. Let us have a glance at the documents of the complainant. Document no.1 is the payment break up details of the 2^nd OP dated 17-5-2011 stating thanks to the complainant for having given order for purchase of Cruze LTZ vehicle and net payable amount was Rs.16,86,190=00. Document no.2 is the receipt issued by RTO, Rajajinagar, Bangalore dated 31-5-2011 in the name of complainant for having paid Rs.2,61,322=00 towards road tax in respect of vehicle bearing chasis no.13943. Document no.3 is tax invoice issued by the 2^nd OP dated 28-5-2011 in the name of complainant for having received Rs.13,87,502=00 for purchase of Chevrolet Cruze including VAT. Document no.4 is the letter given by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd dated 1-6-2011 in the name of complainant stating that, the complainant has availed the vehicle loan of Rs.7,00,000=00 from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd by executing loan agreement. Document no.5 is the copy of certificate cum policy issued by ICICI Lombard in the name of complainant and that copy of the policy shows that, the complainant got insured the vehicle bearing engine no.36686K vehicle with the ICICI Lombard by paying premium amount of Rs.38,181=00 for a period from 31-5-2011 to 30-5-2012 midnight. Document no.6 is the copy of Driving licence issued in the name of complainant. Document no.7 are invoice copy and receipts issued by the Frontline Automobiles in the name of complainant dated 31-8-2011 towards service charges and while doing the service Frontline Automobiles has repaired clutch plate of the vehicle and colleted an amount of Rs.2,330=00 from the complainant. Document No.8 is email letter of the complainant addressed to the 2^nd OP stating that, on 28-8-2011 while coming to Mangalore from Bangalore he could not operate the clutch and on the same day authorized dealers towed his vehicle and delivered on 31-8-2011 and he drove the car on 1-9-2011 to Bangalore to his residence and he has given the car for second service to 2^nd OP on 19-9-2011 and they reported the clutch problem, he feels some manufacturing defect is there in the vehicle and requested to give new vehicle or arrange to pay back money he paid otherwise he will approach the consumer forum. Document no.9 is the reply letter by one Sunil Swain, Customer Assistance Center of OP addressed to the complainant stating that they have requested the OP for assistance and clarification on the matter and also advising service manager of the 2^nd OP to provide necessary possible assistance to the complainant. The said document contained particular of the oral complaint made by the complainant to the 1^st OP regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MF-5067 and his request no. is 24067 dated 20-8-2011. Document no.10 is email letter of Service Head of the OP dated 23-9-2011 addressed to the complainant stating that, the car of complainant was attended vide job card no.008904 dated 19-9-2011 and they trust the complainant is satisfied. The said letter of Service head of OP contained the service vehicle acceptance form wherein in the customer’s request column, it is stated that, break down assistance provided and the vehicle does not move and the said form was signed by service advisor and but not signed by customer. Document no.11 is the legal notice dated 8-12-2011 issued by the complainant’s lawyer to the OPs no.1 and 2 calling upon them to refund the entire amount of Rs.16,86,190=00 alongwith towed charges and compensation within 15 days from the receipt of this notice failing which the complainant will take legal action for appropriate remedy. Document no.12 is the copy of postal acknowledgement card and postal receipt for having sent notice by OPs. Document no.13 is letter of postal department for having delivered the information on 12-12-2011. Document no.14 is the copy of letter of OP dated 28-12-2011 addressed to the complainant for having extended the standard warranty of the car of complainant for one more year, and the warranty was extended to four years from the date of sale i.e. 31-5-2011, as per their standard terms, conditions and exclusion specified in optional warranty scheme. Two more service vehicle acceptance form of Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Dated 29-2-2012 and 2-4-2011 are produced and these documents disclosed that, the vehicle of complainant was checked and made necessary repairs by the said Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Document no.17 is the copy of the second legal notice of the complainant issued to the OPs no.1 and 2 dated 20-4-2012 stating that, from the date of purchase to till the date, the complainant has suffered unwanted and unexpected, inconveniences waste of precious time, money which caused him mental agony, so called the OPs to return the amount of Rs.16,86,190=00 alongwith towed charges and compensation. The said notice contained the copies of postal receipt and acknowledgement card. Document no.18 and 19 are the reply copies of OPs no.1 and 2 denying the contents of notice of complainant.  

11. On a careful reading of the evidence of complainant and documents mentioned above, it is disclosed that, the complainant has purchased a Chevrolet Cruze vehicle from the 2^nd OP by paying an amount of Rs.16,86,190=00, during the month of May-2011, and the complainant started using the vehicle after purchase, and he began getting the problem of clutch while driving and when the complainant informed to the OPs with regard to the problem of the vehicle, the OPs have attended the problem and replaced the clutch and delivered the vehicle to complainant. As per averments of the complaint, it is revealed that, as on this day, the clutch problem of the vehicle of complainant is not yet solved and it is recurring, so it is clear case of manufacturing defect of the vehicle which can not be cured or replaced and the said type of vehicles manufactured by the 1^st OP are facing a serious un-curable clutch problem, which cannot be solved by mere replacement of clutch system or with a new vehicle. So also during the course of evidence the complainant has reiterated that, repeated break down due to clutch problem goes to show that, the very clutch problem was persist in the car at the time of manufacturing and thereby inspite of service provided by changing clutch plate or replacing the entire clutch assembly does not make the clutch suitable to the car. It is no doubt true from the documents of the complainant that, 2 – 3 times the vehicle of complainant was sent for servicing and the clutch plate were replaced by the 1^st OP, still the problem of clutch is not yet solved. Merely because the problem of the complainant with regard to the clutch problem in the vehicle is not solved, it is not proper on the part of the complainant to come to straight conclusion that, the vehicle is having manufacturing defects, and so the complainant is entitled as prayed. Since, the complainant has come to the forum stating that, the vehicle purchased by him from the OP is having manufacturing defect as he got persistent non curable clutch problem, the onus is on the complainant to discharge the burden by placing clear cogent and consistent material evidence. But unfortunately, except the solitary testimony of the complainant no evidence of expert is led by the complainant. In the absence of expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle, it is not justifiable to place total reliance to solitary testimony of the complainant. In fact, the complainant ought to have taken assistant of any independent automobile engineer as expert by appointing him as a court commissioner and got report of expert witness. No such effort is made by the complainant, for the reasons best know to him. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant as mentioned above are insufficient to hold that, the vehicle purchased by the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defect. This is all about the material evidence of the complainant.

12. Let us have a glance at the oral and documentary evidence of OPs. One Damanjeet Singh working in the OP no.1 has stated in his affidavit that, as may be seen from the records of vehicle history and maintenance of the vehicle while covering its first 20,000 kilometers has suffered damages to its clutch pressure plate on about three occasions, the complainant alleges the same as manufacturing defect, nothing could be more unfair than the complainant’s allegations. On each occasion that services have been required on the clutch mechanism, the clutch pressure plate has been found to be burnt and having scorch marks. Such burn and scorch marks on the clutch pressure plate are a tell-tale sign that the clutch is in the habit of being kept pressed for far too long in one go. Keeping the clutch pressed for far too long in one go is wrong driving habit amounting to abuse of the clutch and is bound to cause damage to the clutch mechanism. The damage in question on each occasion has been cured and rectified by free of cost services as a mater of goodwill to the customer. The onus lies on the complainant to produce credible, reliable evidence from neutral quarters refuting the same. In the absence of such credible, reliable evidence from neutral quarters, the allegations of the complainant of the damages to the clutch mechanism being caused by manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. The obligation under new vehicle warranty is limited to the repair of the vehicle of no charge by authorized dealer. The company does not undertake to replace the vehicle or reimburse the purchaser by payment of any money, so the complaint be dismissed.

13. The OP no.1 has produced the copy of service details which is marked as Ex-R1/A wherein it is stated that, on 29-2-2012 carried out the repair of clutch operation as the clutch operation was too hard and also carried out the service and at that time kilometer run was 15,000 and on the same day repair was done. Ex-R1/B is the owners manual of the vehicle and in that document we have found standard limited warranty coverage terms, under warranty condition, it is stated that, the obligation under this new vehicle warranty is limited to the repair of the new motor vehicle and liability of the 1^st OP 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 and beyond servicing and repairing defective parts in the vehicle the company does not under take to replace the vehicle or reimburse the purchaser by payment of any money in respect of the vehicle purchased by them.

          14. One M.D.Ramesh, Business Head of the 2^nd OP has stated in his affidavit by way of evidence that, the 1^st OP extended warranty. No liability can be foisted on the 2^nd OP regarding warranty. The complainant has adopted such unscientific driving methods by keeping the clutch pressed while driving which resulted in clutch wear out and break down. On 19-9-2011 the 2^nd OP attended the car of the complainant for first service and it was noticed that the clutch plate had worn out abnormally in excess of its natural wear and it was replaced as a goodwill gesture though not covered under warranty. Even on the one occasion when this OP attended the vehicle it was repaired to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and delivered to him. The OP no.2 cannot be foisted with any liability, so the complaint be dismissed with cost.

          15. Taking evidence of complainant and compare the same with the oral and documentary evidence of the OPs no.1 and 2, it is made manifest that, whenever the complainant complained about defect in the vehicle, the representative of the OPs no.1 and 2 went and attended the work immediately and clutch system was replaced by authorized service centre of the 1^st OP without charging anything and delivered the vehicle to complainant and 2 -3 times, the complainant complained about the clutch problem and it was attended too by the 1^st OP representative. The main grievance of the complainant is that, the vehicle supplied by the 1^st OP who being the manufacturer is having manufacturing defect as he is found cultch problem and it is not rectified by the OPs. But it is pertinent note that, in order to substantiate the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, no plausible material evidence is placed by the complainant, except self serving statement of the complainant. The complainant ought to have taken help of an independent automobile engineer as an expert by appointing him as a court commissioner and got the report of the commissioner by making investigation of the vehicle. But unfortunately, no such efforts were made by the complainant, for the reason best known to him. Having not placed any independent material evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle of complainant, it is unsafe and unhazardous to place reliance on the material evidence of the complainant as a gospel truth. So viewing the case of the complainant, on the back ground of material evidence of both parties, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove this point that, the vehicle in question is having inherent manufacturing defect, and the OPs are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not rectifying the mistake, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.

16. In view of our negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 16^th day of September 2013).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT