Orissa

Debagarh

CC/31/2019

Sumitra Sahu, aged about 45 years, W/O-Asit Kumar Sahu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Service Manager, Aditya Motors, Aditya Car Automotives (P) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri N.P.Guru & Associates

22 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH

CD Case No-31/2019.

Present-       Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Sumitra Sahu, aged about  45 years,

W/O- Asit Kumar Sahu,

At-Ward No-05,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                                                            Vrs.

1. The Service Manager,

          Aditya Motors,

         Aditya Car Automotives(P)Ltd.,

         At-N.H.-5,Bamphakuda,Phulnakhara,

         Cuttack-754001.

2. The Proprietor,

Krishna Automotive,

Plot No-BL-8, Revenue Plot No-492(P),

Kalunga Industrial Estate, Beldhi,

           Rourkela, Dist-Sundargarh-770031.

3. The Manufacturer,

Mahindra and Mahindra Vehicles

Plot No: A-1, Midc,

Phase IV Chakan Industrial Area Village Nighoje
Taluka Khed,Pune – 410501,

Maharashtra, India.                                                                                        …..O.Ps

 

 

For the O.P-1Sri A. K. Kanoongo,Advocate,

For the O.P-2Nemo.

For the O.P-3None.

 

 

           DATE OF HEARING: 15.10.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 22.10.2019

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-Brief facts of the case are that on dt. 25.09.2015 the Complainant has purchased a New MAHINDRA TUV 300 T8 WHITE having Engine No- SMF6H11421 and Chassis No-MA1NA2SMXF6H39268  from O.P-2 with a cash payment of Rs.8,82,855/-. Again on dtd.22.05.2019, while travelling in said TUV, her driver noticed that the engine light is glowing after starting of engine and the vehicle stopped at the speed of 60 Kms.  On contact with the O.P-2, the same day, he (Complainant) left the vehicle with the dealer for removing the defects. After 2-3 days the O.P-2, M/s Krishna Automotive informed to the Complainant stating that the vehicle is now in good condition and he may take the same. Thereafter, on several occasions, the Complainant left the vehicle with the O.P-2 and various parts, excluding engine, were repaired/completely replaced on payment basis.  On dtd. 03.06.2019, the Complainant along with her husband (Mr. Sahu) and other family members were going towards Cuttack from Bhubaneswar; the engine becomes automatically stopped at the speed of 60 Kms with engine light glowing. Mr. Sahu made contact with O.P-1 and on reaching at his service station narrated the defects to the O.P-1. Then the O.P-1 prepared a job card of all the defects and the Complainant left the TUV as it was likely to take 2-3 days for through inspection and defect removal. On dtd.04.06.2019 after getting information from the O.P-1 over mobile phone Mr. Sahu on dtd. 05.06.2019, reached at the O.P-1 where he persuaded him(Mr. Sahu) to pay the service charges amounting to Rs.42,000/- approximately, but Mr. Sahu opted to go for a test drive of the TUV and will make payment if he is satisfied. During test drive Mr. Sahu observed the same problems were persisted as before for which he denied to take delivery of the vehicle and to pay service charges and left the vehicle there. The O.P-1 on dtd.07.06.2019 informed to Mr. Sahu over his mobile phone that, the TUV needs a complete Engine work for removal of defects. But Mr. Sahu became aggrieved to hearing this as he has already spent a huge amount of money to remove the same defects time to time since year 2015 in the service station of O.P-2 within warranty period, hence he could not decided whether to agree for engine overhauling or not .But he suggested the O.P-1 to make contact with the Company and do as per the Company’s direction. As the defects are not removed the said TUV is lying in idle condition in the service centre of the O.P-1.

But the O.P-1 raised question regarding the jurisdiction to entertain this case and prayed to dismiss the same. The Complainant on dtd. 04.05.2016 came to his service station for availing 3^rd servicing as per the warranty norms but he has never complained of the present problem. Again the warranty period of the said vehicle was for 3 years from the date of purchase or 1,00,000 kilometers whichever is earlier and the Complainant has availed an extended warranty for one year i.e up to dtd. 25.09.2019 or 1,00,000 kilometers whichever is earlier. On dtd.03.06.2019 the husband of the Complainant brought the said vehicle to the O.P-1 when the vehicle was used for three and half years and ran for 1,28,111 kms. He complained of the same problems as earlier and a job card was prepared accordingly. After a through diagnosis by the experts of the O.P-1 it was found that there is a crack in fire module reservoir, fuel filter assemble, fuel control unit and high pressure pump. Intimation was given to the Complainant over telephone for her approval to carry out service work on payment basis as the extended warranty is expired. The Complainant on dtd. 04.06.2019 approved for the repair on paid basis, over phone to O.P-1. After completion of repair works but before delivery a test was made by the experts of O.P-1 where it was found that the same problems were persisted for that the engine is to be removed outside to replace the front cover assembly and the matter was intimated to the Complainant. The husband of the Complainant on dtd 05.06.2019 the O.P-1 to give him/her some time for approval but no approval received from the other side for a long time so that the said vehicle is standing in idle condition in his workshop. Thereafter the O.P-1 on dtd. 22.06.2019 issued a letter to the Complainant seeking her approval and the Complainant on dtd.27.06.2019 replied through e-mail that she has already filed a Consumer caseand requested to remove the defects after contacting the Company(Manufacturer and deliver the same to her in defect free condition failingwhich the matter will be decided by the Hon’ble Court. The O.P-1 has claimed from the Complainant to pay Rs.250/- per day from the date of entry of the said vehicle with having no responsibility towards additional damages due to parking the same for a long time in idle condition.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the Complainant is comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum?
3. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps as he has purchased a TUV and availed services time to time from the O.Ps. As, on being defective the said vehicle was towed from Deogarh, the cause of action arose at Deogarh hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Again it can be seen that since the year 2015 the said TUV is giving problems and the O.P-2 removes the defects and delivers the vehicles to the complainant after receiving service charges time to time. For this reason the Complainant has faded up and has no reliance on the said vehicle. Lastly when the vehicle was in the garage of O.P-1,the complainant on dtd. 04.06.2019 has conveyed his approval for repairing the same on payment basis. During repair, after observation of some other defects the O.P-1 should not wait for approval of the complainant or her husband for second time. Though the O.P-1 had indicated that it was necessary to download the engine to remove the problem which has been complained of, but it is not the botheration of the Complainant in which way the defects are removed. As once they have given consent for repair work it is the duty of the O.P-1 to deliver the vehicle in a defect free condition instead of asking their consent/approval in every stages of detection of defects. Again it is doubtful that whether the repair is being carried out by the technical experts of the O.P-1 or not as there is no such documents have been submitted regarding their expertise. Though the O.P-1 was suggested to make contact with the manufacturer and carry out repair work but it is not known to the Complainant whether the O.P-1 sought any references for the same.

                    

So the O.P-1 intentionally detained the vehicle in his garage with a plea to seeking approval for further repair works just to shift the burden to the Complainant and escape from liabilities. This matter has been well settled in the case of “C.N. Anantharam vs. M/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.” decided on 24 November, 2010 by Supreme Court of India. Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Services” U/S- 2(1)(g) of the  Consumer Protection Act-1986 and we order as under :-

 

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to repair the vehicle in question and hand over the defect free vehicle free of cost within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order.  Further the O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand) as compensation, Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. Also the O.P-1 is further directed not to collect any parking charges from the Complainant. All the above direction are to be complied within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.   

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 22^nd day of October-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

              I agree,                                             I agree,        

 

           MEMBER.(W)                              MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

                                                       Dictated and Corrected

                                                                   by me.    

 

                                                          PRESIDENT