IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No.336/2016

Monday the 27th   day of February, 2017.

Petitioner                                          :        Sree Kumar. S.,

                                                                   S/o. Sivaraman Nair,

                                                                   Sreevihar, North gate,

                                                                   Vaikom  P.O

                                                                   Kottayam – 686141.

                                                                   (Adv. P.K. Muraleedharan)

                                                          Vs.                                                                                           

Opposite parties                               : 1)    The Maruthi Zuzuki India Ltd.,

                                                                   Rept. by the Director,

                                                                   Regional Office, South – 3,

                                                                   Titus Tower, Padivattam,

                                                                   Kochi - 682024

                                                                                                                                                                             2)     Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Reptd. By the Manager,

                                                                   (Authorised dealer Maruti Suzuki

                                                                   India Ltd.), One way Junction,

                                                                   Market P.O., Moovattupuzha

                                                                   Pin – 686673. 

                                                            3)    The Manager,

                                                                   Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Illithodu, Thalayolaparambu P.O,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686605.

                                                O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

                The case of the complainant filed on 08/12/2016 is as follows:

            The complainant on 31/08/2014 purchased one new brand Maruthi Dzire VXIM-TMR4CD200 A/C petrol Car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the  3^rd opposite party, the authorised dealer of  the 1^st opposite party and  it was registered as vide No. KL-36D 9281.  But the said vehicle caused much trouble on the road, mental agony and loss.  All the three  free services of  the vehicle were done by the 3^rd opposite party.  But after the 1^st service itself the  vehicle was found defective on running on the road with a roaring sound inside the car which was immediately reported to the service centre.  After inspection the technicians  of the opposite party intimated that the sound  may be due to alignment problems and the vehicle was returned after repairing.  But the same complaint was continued.  Then the second free service was done at the mileage of 4768 kmtrs.  and  he was reported  the said complaint at that time.  According to the complainant even after the 3^rd free service the defect reported could not be corrected since the  defect was a manufacturing  defect of the car.  And the 3^rd opposite party, the service centre, it was reported that there was a manufacturing defect  of over friction and wear and tear of the left side of tires.   And they reported that it may be a manufacturing defect of the tire.  So the tires were sent directly to the Ernakulam office of the tyre company and on examination the officials of the tyre company reported that the problem is not of any manufacturing  defect of the tyre, it is due to the manufacturing defect of the car.  And it was reported  to the 3^rd opposite party.  Then the Regional Manager of  Indus Motors one Wilson along with the 3^rd opposite party came to the house of  the complainant and checked the vehicle on driving  and realized the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the vehicle was taken for repairs after  providing substitute vehicle.  And after five days the vehicle was returned stating that the  complaint was that of the  stud of the vehicle and it was  replaced.  But the same complaint continued.  And on complaint the vehicle   again surrendered to the 3^rd opposite party on 25/05/2016 for repair.  But after repair the same complaint is continued;  ie. the  roaring sound  within the car on running was aggravated.  According to the complainant even after repairing in so many times the defect of the vehicle  is continued, the roaring sound within the car on running  was aggravated and it is  due to the manufacturing defect of the  vehicle.  And the act of opposite parties in delivering a vehicle having manufacturing defects  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

            Even after accepting the notice opposite parties  has not cared to appear or file version.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties ?
2. Relief and cost.

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and

Ext. A1 to A12 documents.

Point No. 1

            The case of the complainant is that his brand new vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-36-D-9281 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, purchased from the 3^rd opposite party showed some serious defects.  Even after three free services and repairing, the vehicle found defective on running on the road with a roaring sound inside the car.  The said defect is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle and it was  reported  to the 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant produced the copy of a receipt dated 06/09/2014 and the same is marked as Ext. A1.  From Ext. A1 it can be understood that 3^rd opposite party collected Rs. 6,07,754/- as the price of the vehicle from the complainant.  Ext. A7 is the copy of the lawyers notice  sent to the opposite parties by the complainant.  In Ext. A7 they alleged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects and the said defect is not  cured even after three free service and repairs.    It was not  disputed by sending any reply.  Ext. A12 is a certificate dated 10/06/2016 issued by the Maruthi  care centre, Thalappara.  In Ext. A12 it is certified that the disputed vehicle is having manufacturing defects and it is not mechanically repairable.  In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to A12 documents.  In our view  the act of opposite parties in delivering an inferior quality of the vehicle having manufacturing defects amounts  to unfair trade practice and  deficiency in service.  Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

            In view of the finding in point No. 1 .  Complaint is  allowed.   In the result:

1. Opposite parties are  ordered to replace the complainant’s vehicle

with the  same model having the same features.   

            Opposite parties are ordered to refund Rs. 6,07,750/-, the price of the vehicle to the complainant.  On such an event opposite parties can take back the defective vehicle from the custody of the complainant.

2. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to

 the  complainant.

3. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of the litigation

to the complainant.

            The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27^th   day of February ,  2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, PresidentSd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, MemberSd/-

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, MemberSd/-

Documents for the petitioner:

Ext. A1:True copy of thereceiptDtd: 05/09/2014.

Ext. A2:True copy of the certificate Dtd: 05/09/2014

Ext. A3:True copy of the temporary certificateDtd:05/09/2014

Ext. A4:True copy of the first free inspection coupon.

Ext. A5:True copy of the second free inspection coupon.

Ext. A6:True copy of the third free inspection coupon.

Ext. A7:True copy of the legal notice dated: 16/06/2016.

Ext. A8:True copy of the letterDtd: 27/07/2016.

Ext. A9:True copy of the tax/vehicle invoice Dtd: 31/08/2014.

Ext. A10:True copy of the job card/cash memo Dtd: 19/11/2015.

Ext. A11:True copy of the job card/cash memo Dtd: 25/05/2016.

Ext. A12:True copy of the letter dtd: 10/06/2016.

Documents for the opposite parties

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Amp/ 5 cs.

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No.336/2016

Monday the 27th   day of February, 2017.

Petitioner                                          :        Sree Kumar. S.,

                                                                   S/o. Sivaraman Nair,

                                                                   Sreevihar, North gate,

                                                                   Vaikom  P.O

                                                                   Kottayam – 686141.

                                                                   (Adv. P.K. Muraleedharan)

                                                          Vs.                                                                                           

Opposite parties                               : 1)    The Maruthi Zuzuki India Ltd.,

                                                                   Rept. by the Director,

                                                                   Regional Office, South – 3,

                                                                   Titus Tower, Padivattam,

                                                                   Kochi - 682024

                                                                                                                                                                             2)     Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Reptd. By the Manager,

                                                                   (Authorised dealer Maruti Suzuki

                                                                   India Ltd.), One way Junction,

                                                                   Market P.O., Moovattupuzha

                                                                   Pin – 686673. 

                                                            3)    The Manager,

                                                                   Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Illithodu, Thalayolaparambu P.O,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686605.

                                                O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

                The case of the complainant filed on 08/12/2016 is as follows:

            The complainant on 31/08/2014 purchased one new brand Maruthi Dzire VXIM-TMR4CD200 A/C petrol Car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the  3^rd opposite party, the authorised dealer of  the 1^st opposite party and  it was registered as vide No. KL-36D 9281.  But the said vehicle caused much trouble on the road, mental agony and loss.  All the three  free services of  the vehicle were done by the 3^rd opposite party.  But after the 1^st service itself the  vehicle was found defective on running on the road with a roaring sound inside the car which was immediately reported to the service centre.  After inspection the technicians  of the opposite party intimated that the sound  may be due to alignment problems and the vehicle was returned after repairing.  But the same complaint was continued.  Then the second free service was done at the mileage of 4768 kmtrs.  and  he was reported  the said complaint at that time.  According to the complainant even after the 3^rd free service the defect reported could not be corrected since the  defect was a manufacturing  defect of the car.  And the 3^rd opposite party, the service centre, it was reported that there was a manufacturing defect  of over friction and wear and tear of the left side of tires.   And they reported that it may be a manufacturing defect of the tire.  So the tires were sent directly to the Ernakulam office of the tyre company and on examination the officials of the tyre company reported that the problem is not of any manufacturing  defect of the tyre, it is due to the manufacturing defect of the car.  And it was reported  to the 3^rd opposite party.  Then the Regional Manager of  Indus Motors one Wilson along with the 3^rd opposite party came to the house of  the complainant and checked the vehicle on driving  and realized the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the vehicle was taken for repairs after  providing substitute vehicle.  And after five days the vehicle was returned stating that the  complaint was that of the  stud of the vehicle and it was  replaced.  But the same complaint continued.  And on complaint the vehicle   again surrendered to the 3^rd opposite party on 25/05/2016 for repair.  But after repair the same complaint is continued;  ie. the  roaring sound  within the car on running was aggravated.  According to the complainant even after repairing in so many times the defect of the vehicle  is continued, the roaring sound within the car on running  was aggravated and it is  due to the manufacturing defect of the  vehicle.  And the act of opposite parties in delivering a vehicle having manufacturing defects  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

            Even after accepting the notice opposite parties  has not cared to appear or file version.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties ?
2. Relief and cost.

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and

Ext. A1 to A12 documents.

Point No. 1

            The case of the complainant is that his brand new vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-36-D-9281 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, purchased from the 3^rd opposite party showed some serious defects.  Even after three free services and repairing, the vehicle found defective on running on the road with a roaring sound inside the car.  The said defect is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle and it was  reported  to the 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant produced the copy of a receipt dated 06/09/2014 and the same is marked as Ext. A1.  From Ext. A1 it can be understood that 3^rd opposite party collected Rs. 6,07,754/- as the price of the vehicle from the complainant.  Ext. A7 is the copy of the lawyers notice  sent to the opposite parties by the complainant.  In Ext. A7 they alleged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects and the said defect is not  cured even after three free service and repairs.    It was not  disputed by sending any reply.  Ext. A12 is a certificate dated 10/06/2016 issued by the Maruthi  care centre, Thalappara.  In Ext. A12 it is certified that the disputed vehicle is having manufacturing defects and it is not mechanically repairable.  In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to A12 documents.  In our view  the act of opposite parties in delivering an inferior quality of the vehicle having manufacturing defects amounts  to unfair trade practice and  deficiency in service.  Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

            In view of the finding in point No. 1 .  Complaint is  allowed.   In the result:

1. Opposite parties are  ordered to replace the complainant’s vehicle

with the  same model having the same features.   

            Opposite parties are ordered to refund Rs. 6,07,750/-, the price of the vehicle to the complainant.  On such an event opposite parties can take back the defective vehicle from the custody of the complainant.

2. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to

 the  complainant.

3. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of the litigation

to the complainant.

            The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27^th   day of February ,  2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, PresidentSd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, MemberSd/-

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, MemberSd/-

Documents for the petitioner:

Ext. A1:True copy of thereceiptDtd: 05/09/2014.

Ext. A2:True copy of the certificate Dtd: 05/09/2014

Ext. A3:True copy of the temporary certificateDtd:05/09/2014

Ext. A4:True copy of the first free inspection coupon.

Ext. A5:True copy of the second free inspection coupon.

Ext. A6:True copy of the third free inspection coupon.

Ext. A7:True copy of the legal notice dated: 16/06/2016.

Ext. A8:True copy of the letterDtd: 27/07/2016.

Ext. A9:True copy of the tax/vehicle invoice Dtd: 31/08/2014.

Ext. A10:True copy of the job card/cash memo Dtd: 19/11/2015.

Ext. A11:True copy of the job card/cash memo Dtd: 25/05/2016.

Ext. A12:True copy of the letter dtd: 10/06/2016.

Documents for the opposite parties

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.