Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/224/2015
J.Praveen Kumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
VST Motors Ltd, Rep by Customer Relation Manager - Opp.Party(s)
J.Praveen Kumar
01 Apr 2019
ORDER
Date of Filing : 28.05.2015
Date of Order : 01.04.2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.
PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L. : PRESIDENT
TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER
C.C. No.224/2015
DATED THIS MONDAY THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019
J. Praveen Kumar,
S/o. Mr. R. Jayakumar,
Advocate,
No.15, Pattinathar Koil Street,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019. .. Complainant.
..Versus..
1. VST MOTORS LTD.,
Rep. by its Customer Relations Manager,
Old No.144, New No.199,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. Mr. Harish,
M/s. VST SERVICE STATION P LTD.,
No.142 B, Electrical & Electronics Industrial Estate,
L & T Road,
Burma Colony,
Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096.
3. Mr. G. Guhanesh,
M/s. VST SERVICE STATION P LTD.,
No.142 B, Electrical & Electronics Industrial Estate,
L & T Road,
Burma Colony,
Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096.
4. M/s. TATA MOTORS LTD.,
Corporate Office,
Rep. by its President,
Bombay House,
No.24, Homi Mody Street,
Fort Mumbai- 400 001.
5. M/s. TATA MOTORS LTD.,
Regional Office,
Rep. by its Customer Support Manager,
No.116, Kasi Arcade, 7th Floor,
Thyagaraya Road,
T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. .. Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 : M/s. S. Raghunathan &
another
Counsel for the opposite parties 4 & 5 : M/s. Shivakumar & another
ORDER
THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to refund the expenses of Rs.80,000/- incurred for repairing the engine with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of this complaint till date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for hardship, loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainant submits that he purchased a Tata Manza bearing Registration No. TN 06 A 5041 in the name of his wife Mrs. Pradeepa during the month of December 2009. The complainant submits that he is taking the service of the opposite parties regularly and promptly from the inception of purchase till 52,000 kms. reached the car. The complainant submits that on 23.01.2015, when the complainant is returning from Kancheepuram with his family members suddenly the car stopped. Immediately, he contacted the nearest service station at Kancheepuram. But there is no proper response. Hence, the complainant was stranded on the highway for several hours with his family members including a toddler, he had then co-ordinated with nearby towing service and the vehicle was then towed to VST Service Station, Poonamallee. The complainant submits that on 24.01.2015, the Service Engineer of the opposite parties inspected the vehicle and reported that the engine was completely ceased for due repair a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs is required for the simple default of oil drain. Hence, the complainant issued complaint through email dated:31.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 for which, the opposite parties sent a reply dated:02.02.2015 and 03.03.2015 respectively. The complainant submits that eventhough the car has manufacturing defect, the opposite parties has charged a huge amount towards service charges and claimed exorbitant amount for repairing the oil pump. Hence, the complainant has taken the car to the Authorised distributor Maruthi Susee Auto Spare Parts Pvt. Ltd. there the car was fully repaired after expending a sum of Rs.80,000/-. The complainant submits that he is a regular customer of the opposite parties purchased the car and undergone periodical check-up. But the opposite parties wantonly and deliberately omitted to do proper oil service caused damages to the engine resulting seizure of engine. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony. Hence, the complaint is filed.
2. The brief averments in the written version filed by 1st opposite party which is adopted by the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties is as follows:
The 1st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 1st opposite party states that the complainant has purchased a Tata Manza car bearing registration No.TN 06 A 5041 on 30.12.2009. The 1st opposite party is a dealer of the 4th opposite party booked the vehicle and delivered the vehicle. The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the employees of VST Service Station and not under the employees of the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties 4 & 5 are the manufacturers of the vehicle. Hence, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are unnecessary parties in this case. The 1st opposite party states that there is no manufacturing defect in the impugned car because the car was purchased on 30.12.2009 and crossed 52,000 kms. as own use. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in attending the fault giving due services. Till 2013, there is no record regarding the services given to the car. Equally, the last service as per the opposite parties record, there is a breakage of 28 months resulting such drain of engine oil. Because there was no oil service given to the car for more than 23,000 kms. The 1st opposite party states that eventhough the complainant used to bring the vehicle for service, only on his request alone the required service will be carried out. The complainant miserably failed to inform or undergo oil service resulting the drain of oil causing the seizure of engine. The 1st opposite party states that the customer care service of the opposite parties are very prompt. There shall be no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.
3. The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 4 & 5 is as follows:
The opposite parties 4 & 5 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the cars and vehicles manufactured at the plant of these opposite parties are also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for despatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a ‘principal to principal’ basis for sale of the cars and vehicles. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the complainant required mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components viz. air filter, fuel filter etc at recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book given at the time of sale for smooth running and optimum performance. The opposite parties rely on the terms and conditions of warranty of the car in question, owner’s manual and service book and craves leave to refer the relevant extracts of the terms and conditions. It is submitted that as per the service schedule of the car in question, the complainant was supposed to bring the subject car at the recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book for carrying out the mandatory free services, however the complainant has not produced any records so as to show that the complainant had regularly serviced the car as per the recommended service schedule.
4. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the complainant has carried out oil change lastly on or around 26.09.2012 at 30,537 kms. (approx.) and has run the car till 23.01.2015 at 51,839 kms. (approx.) without any change of engine oil at any of the authorized service center of the answering opposite party. It is clear that the car has run for almost 28 months without replacement of engine oil wherein it has covered 21,302 kms. (approx.) which is a gross negligence on the part of the complainant. In this case, the opposite parties 4 & 5 rely on the clause 5 of the terms & conditions of warranty which reads as follows:
“The warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure or by any person other than our sales or service establishments, our authorised dealers or service centres or service points in any way, so as, in our judgement which shall be final and binding to affect its reliability nor shall it apply if in our opinion which shall be final and binding the vehicle is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident or loading in excess of such carrying capacity as certified by us or such services prescribed in our Owner’s Manual and Service Book are not carried out by the buyer through our sales or service establishments, our authorised dealers or service centres or service points”. The opposite parties state that in view of improper maintenance and servicing of the car, the warranty ceases to exist and crave leave to rely on the relevant terms and conditions of the warranty at the time of hearing. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that there is no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and / or deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.
5. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the complainant reported to the workshop of the 1st opposite party at Poonamallee on or around 23.01.2015 at 51,839 kms. When after inspection, no engine oil was found in the car. It was observed that the complainant has run the car without engine oil causing consequential damage to the engine and the complainant has not carried out change of engine oil since 26.09.2012 at 30,537 kms. (approx.) at any of the authorized service center of the answering opposite parties. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the car in question has reported for service on or around 18.03.2014 at 43,824 kms. (approx.) and 28.10.2014 at 49,281 kms. (approx.) for scheduled services & running repairs wherein the complainant has not carried out the mandatory engine oil change. It may be further clarified that water pump was replaced on 28.10.2014 to address the issue of cold starting problem. The opposite parties 4 & 5 state that the complainant has failed to adhere to the recommended schedule of the car, which has resulted into seizure of the engine. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the answering opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 are marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 4 & 5 is filed and document Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the opposite parties 4 & 5.
7. The points for consideration is:-
- Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- expended towards repairing engine with interest as the rate of 24% p.a. as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?
8. On point:-
Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard their Counsels also. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a Tata Manza bearing Registration No. TN 06 A 5041 in the name of his wife Mrs. Pradeepa during the month of December 2009. On the basis of authorisation letter executed by Mrs. Pradeepa, the complainant filed this case. The law is well settled that ‘On behalf of wife the husband can filed cases and take suitable defence’. Further the complainant contended that he is taking the service of the opposite parties regularly and promptly from the inception of purchase till 52,000 kms. reached the car. But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 tax invoices dated:10.10.2013, 18.03.2014 & 31.10.2014 respectively i.e. proves that there is no proper continuous service as per the terms and conditions of the serviceman. Further the contention of the complainant is that on 23.01.2015, when the complainant is returning from Kancheepuram with his family members suddenly the car stopped. Immediately, he contacted the nearest service station at Kancheepuram. But there is no proper response. Hence, the complainant was stranded to be in the highway with his family members for several hours caused great inconvenience.
9. Further the complainant contended that on 24.01.2015, the Service Engineer of the opposite parties inspected the vehicle and reported that the engine was completely ceased for due repair a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs is required for the simple default of oil drain. Hence, the complainant issued complaint through email dated:31.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A6 for which, the opposite parties sent a reply dated:02.02.2015 and 03.03.2015 as per Ex.A5 & Ex.A7 respectively. Further the contention of the complainant is that eventhough the car has manufacturing defect, the opposite parties has charged a huge amount towards service charges and claimed exorbitant amount for repairing the oil pump. Hence, the complainant was constrained to remove the car to the Authorised distributor Maruthi Susee Auto Spare Parts Pvt. Ltd. wherein, the car was fully repaired after expending a sum of Rs.80,000/- But on a careful perusal of Ex.A8 to Ex.A17, the complainant has expended a sum of Rs.71,669/- alone for due repair proves that the opposite parties claimed exorbitant amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs and assured some discount proves the deficiency in service. Further the contention of the complainant is that he is a regular customer of the opposite parties purchased the car and undergone periodical check-up but the opposite parties wantonly and deliberately omitted to do proper oil service negligently caused great inconvenience much less, damages to the engine resulting ceasor of engine.
10. Further the contention of the complainant is that every time, the opposite parties serviced the vehicle in all aspects as per the instruction of the complainant; is not acceptable. Because, the opposite parties is an expert in relation with the maintenance of car. On the other hand, the complainant is the owner of the car driving the car have least knowledge regarding the engine and its mechanical function. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not instructed to change the oil for the past 28 months is utter false and are imaginary. It is the duty of the opposite parties to undergo proper oil service including other services whenever the car was taken for service proves that the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for such mental agony in this case.
11. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5 would contend that admittedly, the complainant has purchased a Tata Manza car bearing registration No.TN 06 A 5041 on 30.12.2009. The 1st opposite party is a dealer of the 4th opposite party booked the vehicle and delivered the vehicle. The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the employees of VST Service Station and not under the employees of the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties 4 & 5 are the manufacturers of the vehicle. Hence, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are unnecessary parties in this case. But it is not denied that they are working under the service providers of the opposite parties 4 & 5. Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that there is no manufacturing defect in the impugned car because admittedly, the car was purchased on 30.12.2009 and crossed 52,000 kms. as own use. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in attending the fault giving due services. Till 2013, there is no record regarding the services given to the car. Equally the last service as per the opposite parties record, there is a breakage of 28 months resulting such drain of engine oil. Because there was no oil service given to the car for more than 23,000 kms. But there is no record. On the other hand on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, it is seen that every below 10,000 kms due service was given even at the crossing of 49,281 kms. There is no record to prove that there is a breakage of oil service for 23,000 kms.
12. Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that eventhough the complainant used to bring the vehicle for service, only on his request alone the required service will be carried out. The complainant miserably failed to inform or undergo oil service resulting the drain of oil causing the seizure of engine. Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that the customer care service of the opposite parties are very prompt. There shall be no delay or deficiency in service. The allegations that the complainant has informed the opposite parties’ customer care for the alleged stoppage of engine in the middle of the road and there was no response, is not proved. On the other hand, it is clearly admitted by the complainant that on 24.01.2015, the opposite parties has inspected the vehicle and due estimation by way of invoice was given. But the complainant without saying any words taken the vehicle out of the purview of the service agents of the opposite parties and rectified the defects and filed this case. But on a careful perusal of records from Ex.A4 & Ex.A5, it is very clear that the opposite parties claimed Rs.1.5 lakhs towards repair. On the other hand, the complainant successfully completed the repair works on payment of Rs.71,669/- proves the unfair trade practice also.
13. Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that admittedly, the warranty period is lapsed to the impugned vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect also. The complainant ought to have paid the charges towards repairing works. The claim towards repairing work is not acceptable. But it is very clear from the records and pleadings that the opposite parties has not taken reasonable care for due oil service eventhough the impugned vehicle was taken to the opposite parties continuously for service resulting the ceasor of engine proves the deficiency in service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.71,699/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint to till the date of order and a compensation Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,699/- (Rupees Seventy one thousand six hundred and ninety nine only) being expenses incurred for repairing the engine along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 28.05.2015 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 01.04.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.
The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.
Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01st day of April 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-
Ex.A1 | 10.10.2013 | Copy of tax invoice at 39,624 km |
Ex.A2 | 18.03.2014 | Copy of tax invoice at 43,824 km |
Ex.A3 | 31.10.2014 | Copy of tax invoice at 49,281 km |
Ex.A4 | 31.01.2015 | Copy of email sent by the complainant to opposite party |
Ex.A5 | 02.02.2015 | Copy of email sent by the opposite party to complainant |
Ex.A6 | 03.02.2015 | Copy of email sent by the complainant to opposite party |
Ex.A7 | 03.03.2015 | Copy of email sent by the opposite party to complainant |
Ex.A8 | 04.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.6,773/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A9 | 04.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.335/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A10 | 04.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.365/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A11 | 23.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.5,578/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A12 | 25.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.598/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A13 | 28.03.2015 | Copy of Cash Memo for a sum of Rs.261/- Susee Auto Spares P Ltd |
Ex.A14 | 27.03.2015 | Copy of cash bill for a sum of Rs.3,660/- Vicky Automobiles |
Ex.A15 | 23.03.2015 | Copy of invoice for a sum of Rs.8,270/- Chennai Auto Engineering |
Ex.A16 | 23.03.2015 | Copy of bill for a sum of Rs.17,280/- Chennai Auto Corporation |
Ex.A17 | 20.04.2015 | Copy of cash bill for a sum of Rs.27,951/- Kars Kare Service Centre |
Ex.A18 | 30.06.2016 | Authorization letter - Original |
OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL
OPPOSITE PARTIES 4 & 5 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-
Ex.B1 |
| Copy of terms and conditions of Warranty |
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.