BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2018
Filed on : 02-06-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.214/2017
Between
Raju Thomas, : Complainant
Vadakkedath House, (By Adv. Srinath SS, )
Vivek Nagar, Kadavanthara P.O.,
Kochi-682 020.
And
M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & : Opposite party
Sons, TVS Junction, (By Adv.V. Krishna Menon, and SuryaJ
Near Vodafone Building, Menon & Menon, Kumaran Arcade,
Kalamassery, 1st Floor, Power House Road, (Market
Kerala-682 033, Road, North End, Kochi-682 016)
rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
2. The complainant purchased a Renault Duster Motor Car on 10-06-2013. The car had guarantee for repairs and services for a period of 4 years or 8000 kms which ever is less. The complainant produced the car before the service centre at Kalamassery during the period 09-09-2013 to 16-01-2013 at 9296 kms 10563 kms, 17921 kms 19340 kms, 19909 kmts, 28701 k.mts.37205 kms. The service invoices for the same has been produced along with the complaint. However, during the 7 services as above the authorized service centre did not bring it to the notice that there was manufacturing defects in respect of the Shock Absorber fitted in the car. The last service on 16-01-2017, no complaint was reported to the rear shock absorber. However, on 16-01-2017 one of the shock absorber on the rear side became defective and that fact was intimated to the opposite party by e-mail on 05-02-2017. The opposite party had replied the email stating that shock absorber are subject to wear and tear and therefore extended warranty is not applicable to defective shock absorber. The case of the complainant is that the damage relating to the shock absorber happened due to the manufacturing defect. The complainant therefore issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 17-02-2017. The opposite party accepted the same on 22-02-2017. The opposite party had refused to replace the damaged shock absorber. The complainant therefore pray for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and for the replacement of the defective shock absorber.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and contested the matter by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Clause 4.4. of the terms and conditions of the warranty specifically state that the warranty was not apply for replacement of the parts, due to wear and tear, resulting from the use of the vehicle or from its mileage. The complainant having brought his vehicle to the service station on 16-01-2017 for carrying out periodical service. The service centre noted that the rear shock absorber on the left hand side was worn out and required replacement. However, the complainant did not approve replacement. There after he had sent an e-mail on 05-05-2017 informing that there was manufacturing defects. The complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
- Reliefs and costs.
6. The evidence in this case consists of Exbt. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any oral or documentary evidences .
7. Issue No. i The complainant purchased the vehicle during June 2013 and it was registered on 10-06-2013. He produced Exbt. A1 to A8 documents to support the case. Exbts. A1 to A7 are the invoices pertaining to the repairs done on the vehicle during 09-09-2013 to 16-01-2017. It is seen on the same page on Exbt. A7 that there was a recommendation to change rear shock absorber and it is seen noted CNA. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party CNA is short form of Customer Not Approved. Exbt. A8 is the e-mail sent by the complainant to the manufacturer of the car on 05-02-2017 claiming that he is entitled for replacement of the rear shock absorber. As per Exbt. A8 (2) the customer relationship officer had replied that the shock absorbers are subject to wear and tear under different condition which does not come under the extended warranty terms and conditions. The complainant through Adv. C.A. Sadasivan had caused to issue a Legal Notice on 17-02-2017, a copy of which marked as Exbt. A8(4). There is no oral evidence on the part of the complainant.
8. On going through the documentary evidence produced in this case, it is note that the complainant has not produced any documents to show that the rear shock absorbers of the vehicle could be covered under the extended warranty allegedly taken by the complainant. While the complainant asserts manufacturing defects for the shock absorber, the opposite party would content that the shock absorber did not have any manufacturing defect, but it became faulty due to wear and tear. Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased in the year 2013 and the alleged defect was found out only in the year 2017. It is trite that manufacturing defect if any should have been brought to the notice of the manufacturer within the reasonable time immediately after its purchase. In this case the complainant had aired his 1st grievance regarding the faulty shock absorber only after 4 years of the purchase of the vehicle. He did not produced the terms and conditions of the warranty to substantiate his claim that the shock absorbers were covered under the warranty even though wear and tear. There is no expert's evidence or report on the point in this case. Therefore, we find that the complaint is ill-founded and the issue as found against the complainant.
9. Issue No.ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be diminished and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 19-09-2017(2)
A2 : Copy of invoice dt. 05-12-2013
A3 : Copy of invoice dt. 11-12-2014
A4 : Copy of invoice dt. 20-12-2014
A5 : Copy of invoice dt. 08-01-2015
A6 : Copy of invoice dt. 06-02-2016
A6(ii) : Copy of invoice dt. 06-02-2016
A7 : Copy of invoice dt. 16-01-2017
A7(2) : Copy of invoice
A8 : Copy of g-mail dt. 05-02-2017
series
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
