IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 29^th day of September, 2021.

                                      Filed on 07-05-2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.103/2019

between

Complainant:-                                                     Opposite parties:-

Sri.Antony Chacko                                  1.      The Manager

S/o Chacko                                                         T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Pvt.

Kattungal Thayyil                                              Ltd., Punnapra North P.O.

Andhakaranazhi P.O.                                         Paravoor, Alappuzha

Cherthala, Alappuzha                                        (exparte)

(Adv.Sri.John Jude Issac)                                 

                                                                    2.      Sri.Anand G

                                                                             Managing Director

                                                                             Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

                                                                             Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder

                                                                             Mumbai-400001

                                                                             (Adv.Sri.Saji Mathew)

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

On 13.09.18 complainant purchased a new Marazza car from the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs/14,03,899/-.   It was registered as KL 32 N 1301.  Opposite party offered guarantee to the vehicle.   After 7 days while the complainant was using the vehicle he noticed several problems like wheel side sound, loud sound from gear box etc. and found that the performance of the vehicle was not satisfactory.  The matter was reported to the 1^st opposite party and it was entrusted for repairs.  It was retuned assuring that all defects are cured.  However after some days the same defects were found in the vehicle and it is due to mechanical defects.  1^st opposite party who is the authorized dealer did not give satisfactory service and returned the vehicle without curing the defects.  There is deficiency of service from the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party sent a false notice on 17.03.19 to the complainant. 

2.      Due to the illegal act and negligence of the opposite parties complainant issued a registered notice demanding to replace the vehicle and give a new car without any mechanical defects or return the value of the vehicle.  Opposite parties sent a false reply notice and the defects are not cured.  Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle and in the alternative to pay Rs.14,03,899/- being the price of the vehicle.  Complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3.      1^st  opposite party remained exparte.  2^nd opposite party field a version mainly contenting as follows:-

          Complaint is not maintainable and it is bad for misjoinder of parties.  Complainant is not a consumer.  2^nd opposite party shown in the complaint as Mr.Anand G, Managing Director Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.  Managing director is an official position under the Companies Act.  Managing director is not personally liable for the business transactions of the company. 

4.      The transactions between Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd and M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.(opposite parties No.1 and 2) are on principal to principal basis.  2^nd opposite party is not liable for the act of the 1^st opposite party.  This opposite party had no transactions with the complainant.  This opposite party/ the manufacturer offers the warranty of 3 years or 1,00,000 Kms and the terms and conditions are mentioned in the owner’s manual/ warranty card.  The allegation that after 7 days of purchase of vehicle complainant noticed several problems are false.  Such issues were not reported to this opposite party.  On 03.10.18 the vehicle was reported for first free service at 1104 Kms.  During the first service the infotainment software flashing was completed along with replacement of right hand shaft.  The vehicles manufactured by 2^nd opposite party passes through stringent quality checks and road trials.  The vehicle was brought for 2^nd free service at 9902 Kms on 29.12.18 and no major issues were reported.  All the concerns pointed out by the complainant was properly attended and resolved by providing prompt service.

5.      Complainant brought the vehicle for service with the 1^st opposite party on completion of 15,767 Kms with a complaint of front sound.  Thorough inspection including 25 point check was also made and no issues was found in the vehicle.  At 15,935 Kms the vehicle was brought to the service centre and the complaint was resolved.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.  The vehicle was brought for 3^rd free service at 19971 Kms on 22.04.19 and there was no defect.  Notice issued by the complainant was duly replied.  Hence complainant is not entitled for any relief and so the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.

6.      On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the car exchanged or in the alternative entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 14,03,899/- being the price of the vehicle?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and cost?

7.      Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence.   Ext.B1 was marked.

8.      Point Nos.1 to 3

          PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A8. 

9.      On 13.09.18 PW1, the complainant purchased a Mahindra Marazzo car for Rs.14,03,899/- from the 1^st opposite party.  The vehicle was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  Opposite parties had offered guarantee for the vehicle.  According to PW1 after about 7 days of purchase of the vehicle he noticed certain noises and found several problems for the vehicle.  It was entrusted for repairs with the 1^st opposite party being the authorized service centre.  Though it was returned by 1^st opposite party and informed that all the defects are cured complainant is not satisfied, since the defects are continuing. Hence he has filed the complaint for exchange of the vehicle or in the alternative for realizing the price along with Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.  1^st opposite party remained exparte and 2^nd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting that the vehicles manufactured by them are undergoing stringent quality checks.  On enquiry with the 1^st opposite party it was revealed that the vehicle was produced for service and during that time all the defects were cured.  Hence according to them complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is only to be dismissed.   Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 13.09.18.  PW1 was examined on 09.09.21.  During cross examination he admitted that even now also he is using the vehicle.  From the version filed by opposite party No.2 he had understood that the vehicle is not having any mechanical defects.  He admitted that he has not produced any document to show that the vehicle is having any mechanical defects.  So it can be seen that except the solitary interested testimony of PW1 no other evidence either oral or documentary is available to show any mechanical or manufacturing defects.  Per contra from the version it is revealed that during all the time when the vehicle was produced for service the complaints were promptly attended.  This is to be read along with the admission of PW1 during cross examination that even now also he is using the vehicle.  As stated earlier the vehicle was purchased on 13.09.18 and PW1 was examined on 09.09.2021 ie, after about 3 years of the purchase of the vehicle.  From the version it is gathered that 2^nd opposite party is offering a warranty for 3 years or 1,00,000 Kms.  Whenever the vehicle was produced for service it was promptly attended and PW1 has not produced any document to show that he made complaints before the 1^st opposite party regarding the mechanical defects.  When notice was issued to the opposite parties 2^nd opposite party initially sent a reply notice on 29.03.2019 and later sent a detailed reply notice on 19.04.2019.  From the version it is seen that the vehicle was reported for last service on 22.04.19 and the odometer reading was 19,971 Km.  The complaint is seen filed on 07.05.19.  Complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that the vehicle is having any mechanical/ manufacturing defects.  Complainant is doing steel fabrication work and so he cannot be considered as an expert in the automobile field.  From the evidence on record it is seen that whenever the vehicle was produced at the service centre of 1^st opposite party the complaints were cured.  There is no scrap of paper to show that the vehicle is having any mechanical / manufacturing defect except the interested testimony of PW1.  Since the complainant failed to prove that the vehicle is having any mechanical defects and that there was deficiency in service he is not entitled for any reliefs and so these points are found against the complainant.

10.    Point No.4

          In the result complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 29^th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Sd/-Smt.Lekhamma C K (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           Sri.Antony Chacko (Witness)

Ext.A1                       -           Bill dtd.13.09.2018

Ext.A2                       -           Copy of notice dtd.07.03.19

Ext.A3                       -           Copy of lawyer’s notice

Ext.A4                       -           Postal receipts

Ext.A5                       -           AD card

Ext.A6                       -           AD card

Ext.A7                       -           Reply notice dtd.29.03.2019

Ext.A8                       -           Reply notice dtd.19.04.2019

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

Ext.B1                       -           Copy of warranty

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-