CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 47/2010
Friday, the 28th day of January, 2011
Petitioner : Tiji Sebastian
Kalluvettukuzhy House,
Athirampuzha
Kottayam.
(By Adv. K.Santhoshkumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Regional Manager,
Maruti Suzuki, 2nd Floor,
Tutoos Tower, NH 47,
Padivattom, Kochi.
(By Adv. Zakhier Hussain)
2) The Manager,
Popular Automobiles,
Near St.Thomas Orthodox Church, S.H Mount P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. B Ashok)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 5..3..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Register No. KL-5 Z 6156, manufactured by the first opposite party. According to the petitioner he purchased the vehicle for his on personal use. Even after the first free service ie. when the vehicle covered 300 K.M. Vehicle showed serious complaint in the gear box. Petitioner reported the matter to the second opposite party and vehicle was taken to the workshop of the second opposite party for rectification of defects. After a thorough verification complaints were rectified and the vehicle was returned back to the petitioner. After 2 weeks vehicle shown same complaint and on 9..1..2010
-2-
vehicle became break down during running. Again matter was reported to the second opposite party and the vehicle has been taken to the second opposite party. According to the petitioner after repeated requests and demands opposite parties were not ready to rectify the defects and return the vehicle on running condition. Consequently petitioner issued a registered notice to the opposite party alleging manufacturing defect to the vehicle and demanded for return of the vehicle, defect free. Due to the repeated request and compulsion opposite party rectified the defects and return the vehicle after 2 weeks. But even now said vehicle have some defects during running. According to the petitioner vehicle had manufacturing defect. Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service so the petitioner prays for a direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- as damages for the inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle. Petitioner also claims costs and compensation.
First opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable and the petition is bad for mis joinder of parties. The vehicle manufactured by the first opposite party undergone stringent quality checks and only after being certified final check ‘OK’ vehicle was dispatched to dealer destination. Dealers at the time of sale to their customers carryout final pre delivery inspection. First warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 KMs from the date of purchase. Petitioner has an option to subscribe extended warranty . As per clause 3 the obligation of first opposite party is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. Petitioner on 20..4..2009 after plying 386 KM brought the vehicle at the
-3-
workshop of the opposite party 2 for obtaining first free mandatory inspection service. The complainant reported tightness in the gear lever were upon vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert staff of opposite party 2 and gear lever was replaced under warranty free of costs to the complainant along with carrying out normal routine service. Complainant took delivery of the vehicle after the service without any protest and demur. The complainant to his entire satisfaction signed on the job card. On 15..9..2009 at 3772 KMs. Complainant brought vehicle to the second opposite party workshop obtaining second free inspection service. At that time of obtaining said service the complainant did not point out alleged problems. The vehicle in question have no manufacturing defect. According to the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the second opposite party after run of 386 KM. Petitioner brought the vehicle to the workshop of the second opposite party on 20..4..2009. Complainant alleged at that time that second gear position of gear lever of the vehicle had some tightness and he instructed to the second opposite party to cure the defect. On examination it is found that second gear hub of the said vehicle has some defect and the opposite party is intimated the said fact to the first opposite party and requested them to replace it. Second gear hub of the said vehicle was replaced under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the consumer on 2..5..2009 and 15..9..2009 vehicle was brought second free service and on the same day vehicle was delivered to the
-4-
customer after service. There after prior to the 3rd free service, on 11..01..2010 the petitioner intimated the second opposite party certain defects to the vehicle. Second opposite party brought the vehicle using pick-up van to their service station. Second opposite party inspected the vehicle thoroughly on 11..1..2010 and found that the starting problem is due to defects in electronic Control Medula (ECM). Immediately the matter was informed to the customer and intimated him that ECM can be replaced during warranty period. On 13..1..2010 matter was reported to the first opposite party and since the ECM is not in the store of the second opposite party the said part cannot be replaced at that date itself since the said part is costly one it is to be sent by the first opposite party. Second opposite party ordered the said part to the first opposite party on 13..1..2010 itself. The said ECM was received by the second opposite party on 25..1..2010. 26..1..2010 was a holiday due to Republic day. The replacement of ECM was done on 27..1..2010 and after road test the vehicle was delivered to the customer on 28..1..2010. According to the second opposite party 13 days delay is not due to any latches or negligence on the part of the second opposite party. According to the second opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B7 documents on the side of the opposite party.
-5-
Point No. 1
According to the petitioner there is inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle, which was given to the second opposite party, after curing the defect noticed by the petitioner. Petitioner also alleged manufacturing defect against the first opposite party. Admittedly the vehicle was brought to the service station of the second opposite party on 9..1..2010. It is admitted by the opposite parties that repaired vehicle was return to the petitioner after 30 days. On 13..1..2010 after inspection second opposite party found that starting problem is due to the defect in Electronic Control Modula. Immediately second opposite party intimated the matter to the first opposite party on 13..1..2010 itself. Since the said parts are costly second opposite party ordered the said part to the first opposite party on 13..1..2010 itself. Second opposite party produced copy of purchase order dtd: 13..1..2010 said document is marked as Ext. B5. From Ext. B5 it can be seen that on 13..1..2010 itself parts were ordered by 2nd opposite party. The second opposite party ordered the ECM to the first opposite party. Second opposite party produced the stock ledger report dt: 31..3..2010 . From the said document it can be seen that on 25..1..2010 the said part was issued to the workshop for doing repair in the vehicle. Admittedly 26..1..2010 was a holiday due to Republic Day. From Ext. B3 job card it can be seen that vehicle was delivered to petitioner on 28..1..2010.
Deficiency is defined in section 2 (g) of Consumer Protection Act as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to service. Here we do not find any willful delay
-6-
or latches on the part of the second opposite party with regard to the service rendered by them.
Even though petitioner has a definite case of manufacturing defect he has not adduced any expert evidence with regard to the manufacturing defect. We cannot blame the first opposite party about manufacturing defect. In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28th day of January,2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of the lawyers notice Dtd: Nil.
Ext. A2: Copy of postal receipt Dtd: 25..1..2010.
Ext. A2(a) Copy of postal receipt Dtd: 25..1..2010
Ext. A3series Postal AD Cards
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of Job Card Dtd: 20..4..2009
Ext. B2: Copy of job card Dtd: 15..9..2010
Ext. B3: Copy of Job Card Dtd: 11..1..2010
Ext. B4: Copy of Job Card Dtd:15..3..2010
Ext. B5: Copy of purchase order.
Ext. B6: Copy of the stock ledger report.
By Order,
Senior Supertendent
