Filed On:16.04.2012
Disposed On:23.07.2015
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.SC., L.L.M : PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., : MEMBER-I
Thursday, the Day of 23rd July-2015
CC. No. 9/2012
Mr. R. Gnanasekaran
S/o. K.B. Rajamanickam
No. 16, Muthamizh Nagar
Poonamallee
Chennai-600 056. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. V.S.T. Service Station Pvt., Ltd.,
SF/267/2, Poonamallee Bye Pass Road
Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056.
2. TATA MOTORS HEAD OFFICE
Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street Ford
Mumbai: 400 001
Maharashtra, India.
3. GLOBAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
Vatika Triangle, 5th Floor
Sushant Lok-I, Block-A
M.G.Road, Gurgaon - 122 002
Haryana, India. …Opposite Parties
Counsel For Complainant : Mr. S. Muthukumaravel
Counsel for Opposite Party-1 : M/s. K.V. Rajan, & G. Vardini Karthik,
(Advocates)
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.38,792/- with interest of 12 percent P.A. for 15.12.2011 till the date of payment towards compensation due to deficiency in service and to pay a cost of litigation.
The Brief Facts of the Complaint are as follows:
1. The Complainant left his TaTa Indica Vista Quadrajet Aura, private Car bearing registration number TN-20-BY-4618, for starting problem on 05.12.2011, at 1st opposite party’s service station, it was diagnosed with damage in radiator Assy Fan with Shroud, Assy Idler, Auto Tensioner, R&R Fan motor assy and shroud. The same is explicitly covered under Extended Warranty bearing Policy No. 48-119364, which policy stands in force till 23rd November 2012, risk covered jointly and severally by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But the claim has been elsewhere hence not liable. The 40000 KMS service was done elsewhere hence not liable. The 40000 KMS service was done at Korean Tech Car Lounge, Chennai on 11.03.2011, for convenience, because the VST was closed for renovation at that precise point of time. Even otherwise the said 40000 KMS service is nothing to do with radiator. Assy Fan with Shroud, Assy Idler, Auto Tensioner, R&R Fan motor assy and shroud. The doctrine of ‘Pith and substance’ plays the role of vitality in so far as this un-warranted repudiation is concerned. The one and only intention of the opposite parties is to belch the extended warranty amount and resultantly escape liability under vexatious reason, which is strictly condemnable. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,221/- vide invoice Nol. VSTMoL-PP2-002896. The vehicle was delivered on 09.12.2011.
2. Again on 10.12.2011 (Friday), the complainant encountered hard and insufficient breaking problem, hence complainant left the vehicle for service on 12.12.2011 (Monday) for service, it was diagnosed with damage in Assy vacuum pipe, assy 9 booster. The same is also explicitly covered under extended Warranty bearing Policy No. 48-119364, which policy stands in force till 23rd November 2012. But this claim has also been deliberately repudiated with same flimsy reason. The 40000 KMS service is nothing to do with Assy vacuum pipe, assy 9th booster. Again the doctrine of ‘Pith and Substance’ comes into picture in so far as this un-warranted repudiation is concerned. The complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.5,571/- vide invoice No. VSTMoL-PP2-112-03167. The vehicle was delivered on 16.12.2011.
3. Prior to the above 2 services, complainant’s car was duly serviced vide invoice No. VSTMoL-PP2-1112-01319, dated 21.09.2011, again vide invoice no. VSTMoL-PP2-1112-01660, dated 12.10.2011, during these a services, the above referred frivolous repudiated damages were not prevalent. Hence proved that the repudiated damage is no way an outcome of 40,000 KMS service being done at Korean Tech Car Lounge, Chennai on 11.03.2011. The claim may be repudiated if and only if there is any direct connection between component serviced erstwhere @ 40000 KMS and the component damaged.
4. The complainant further submits that there is neither CONDITION CLAUSE nor EXCLUSION CLAUSE in Extended Warranty card, specifically stating that service should be done at same service station during the period of coverage. Thus the conditions printed out on the external warranty card does not corroborate with the repudiation. There is grossly amounts to deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties, thereby make them jointly & Severally liable for the damages. Hence the complaint.
The Contention of the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party-1 as briefly as follows:
5. The complaint as filed against the 1st opposite party is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
6. The vehicle was left in the service station to attend to the damage in it on 05.12.2011 and after service the vehicle was delivered back on 09.12.2011 in perfect running condition is correct. It is also true to say that a sum of Rs.11,221/- was charged for the work done. This Opposite Party states that because the complainant did not avail of services with any of the authorized service centres for the 40000 KM service, the warranty conditions stipulate that the same are not available and become void. It is one of the conditions that during the currency of the warranty, the complainant is obliged to take the services for attending to his vehicle only with any of the authorized service centres. The complainant did not observe this condition while taking service with Korean Tech Car Lounge. Therefore this Opposite Party was justified in charging the complainant for service rendered when the vehicle came for service on 05.12.2011. Extended warranty is in continuation of the original warranty.
7. When the complainant brought the vehicle to the service station on 12.12.2011, the vehicle was attended to and delivered back on 16.12.2011 in good working condition. This Opposite party also charged a sum of Rs. 5,571/- for services rendered as the complainant has forfeited the warranty facility on account of taking 40,000 KM service outside other than authorized service stations.
8. There is no direct nexus between the 40000KM service undertaken in Korean Tech Car Lounge and the defect in the car to deprive the warranty facility is not correct. It is one of the conditions that during the currency of the warranty, the vehicle covered by the warranty should be serviced only by an authorized service centre. This the complainant has not observed. Therefore this opposite party was correct in collecting charges for the services done on both the occasions.
9. The complainant is not entitled to claim any monetary compensation from the opposite party’s on this to claim any monetary compensation from the opposite party’s on this account. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.
10. On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit is filed as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A17. Whileso, the opposite party-1 filed his proof affidavit for his evidence. Whereas, Opposite Party-2 and Opposite Party-3 remained Exparte.
11. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is,
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other relief the complainant is entitled?
12. Written Arguments submitted by both sides and the copy of the same is furnished to either side.
13. Point No. 1:- According to the case of the complainant is that though the extended warranty bearing Policy No. 48-119364, which stands inforce till 23.11.2012, the opposite part y deliberately repudiated the claim of the complainant vide invoice No. VSTM OL PP 2.11. 2012 -002896 for Rs. 11,221/- and Rs.5574/- vide invoice No. VSTM OL-PP2-2.11.03167 with reason which is arbitrary and committed the deficiency in service and caused mental agony. Whileso, the opposite party -1, denied the allegation and contented that the complainant has not at all followed the terms and conditions of the Extended Warranty Policy that is, the complainant has not observed the one of the condition that during the currency of the warranty, the vehicle covered by the warranty should be serviced only by an authorized service centre and therefore there is no deficiency in service and the opposite party correctly repudiated the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
14. At this juncture, the duty cast upon this forum to decide whether the complainant has proved the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party’s by means of cogent and consistent evidence beyond any doubts. First of all, on careful perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the opposite party-1, all the facts pertaining to the complaint are admitted except the fact, of that the complainant has not acted accordingly to the terms and conditions of the policy of Extended warranty of the vehicle belong to the complainant. The policy is marked as Ex.A3 which is not disputed. At this point of time, Ex.A3 is the vital document to be taken into consideration. On careful perusal of the Ex.A3 it reads as follows:
Authorized Reparing,
The supplying dealer or branch of the manufacturer that sold the vehicle or auto repair counter of the dealership further, in class (h), it is stated as follows,
The vehicle must be operated in accordance with the operating instruction to the owner’s manual and must be regularly services at the correct time(s) and Kms intervals as recommended by the manufacturer. Failure to comply with operating instructions or service the vehicle according to such recommendation will render the policy to voidable.
15. At the outset, it is seen from the admitted facts that the complainant did not avail of services with any of the authorized service centres for the 40,000 Kms service. As per the conditions stipulated in the Ex.A3 Policy, that during the currency of the warranty the complainant is obliged to take the service for attending the vehicle only with any of the authorized service centres. But the complainant did not observe the said condition while taking services with Korean Tech Car Lounge. It is noticed from Ex.A6. The reason for the service was done it Korean Tech Car Lounge, Chennai on 11.3.2011 for convenience, because the VST was closed for renovation at the precise point of time. At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that as per the condition of the warranty, it is not the condition or instruction that the service has to be done only in the same service station. In fact, the service condition is that it is to be done in any of the authorized service station in stipulated by the manufacturer. Therefore, the reasons stated by the complainant for the service done in the Korean Tech Car Lounge which is other than the authorized service station of the manufacturer of the TaTa Motors cannot be accepted and the contention raised by the opposite party’s having its own merits.
16. At this juncture, this forum wants to enlighten that in respect of policy or warranty, the customer must claim on pan with the terms and conditions which are specifically stipulated in the policy. Whileso, the case on hand, the complainant has not followed the terms and conditions of the extended warranty of the alleged vehicle. So, the contention that the complainant has for forfeited the warranty facility on account of taking 40,000 km service outside other claim the authorized service station cannot be thrown out easily.
17. Next, regarding the other allegations of viz. the oil service done on 18.05.2012, it is seen that the vehicle was attended to and delivered back to the complainant in good condition which was acknowledged by the complainant. Furthermore, it is evident that for the next 5 months the said vehicle was on road and there was no complaint about the vehicle and running comfortably. Moreover, there is no other evidence or proof except the Ex.A14 the legal notice dated 17.10.2012 to show that the opposite parties have ruined the car engine of the complainant and other facts. Regarding the document in Ex.A16 & E.A17, which are not pertaining to the opposite party-1 So, even if it may be some truth in the web site complaints, it cannot be taken for consideration in this case.
18. In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum, hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Thus the point no. 1 is answered accordingly.
19. Point. No.2;- In view of the conclusion arrived in the point No. 1 this complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and thus the point no. 2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.
Dictated directly by the president to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 23rd July- 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
Member President
