BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 145 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.558 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM –II HYDERABAD
Between
Miss Ubale Pitambari D/o U.Vijay Kumar
R/o 1-9-253/13/3, MCH Colony Road,
Ram Nagar, Hyderabad, A.P.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
- The General Manager (Service)
TVS Motor Company Ltd., Post Box No.4
Harita Hosur-635 109, Tamil Nadu
- M/s Shanti Motors, rep. by its Manager
G-2, 3, LKR Arcade, Street No.9
Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-29
Respondent/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Sunil Kamthankar
Counsel for the Respondent Sri S.Leo Raj
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
The appeal is a challenge to the order of the District Forum. The complainant has filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 29.11.2011 she purchased a vehicle TVS Wego BS manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for ₹53,800/- from opposite party no.2. After full payment of money during test drive the complainant noticed a problem in the handle which was shaking and the same was informed to the executive of the dealer who told to bring the vehicle next day so that he would rectify it. But in spite of several repairs to the vehicle the opposite party no.2 could not rectify the problem. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 instructed the complainant that they would rectify the problem in first service. Though the complainant gave the vehicle for the first service but the problem continued to exist. She filed the complaint alleging that ever since the purchase of the vehicle the opposite party no.2 could not rectify the problem due to manufacturing defects and he was unable to use the same properly. The Opposite Parties failed to repair the vehicle and prevent the recurrence of problem. She, therefore, claimed to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle or to refund of ₹53,800/- together with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of TVS Wego Scooters at their factory with good industry practice. They manufacture scooters in compliance of Motor Vehicles Act etc. The scooters are taken up for dispatch to dealers only when the Quality Control ()QC) test is found to be OK in all respects. The scooters manufactured by the opposite party no.1 are sold “on principal to principal basis” to its various dealers across the country and the owner of scooter is given warrantee. To facilitate warranty services to the owner of the scooter, free and paid service coupons are furnished. It is the practice in trade, as the dealers of the opposite party no.1 that before delivering the vehicle to the purchaser, a pre-delivery inspection is done at the dealers place so as to ensure the vehicle is delivered in good condition. The dealer offers test ride of the vehicle to the prospective purchasers before the purchaser pays the price of the vehicle. The purchasers used to satisfy about the scooter features and checking the same at the time of delivery from the dealer’s premises. In the instant case the complainant checked the vehicle and also conducted test ride after satisfying with it, she purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.2. It is the responsibility on the part of the complainant to get the service from time to time stipulated in the service coupons. As per the warrantee conditions the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 28.11.2011 and she availed number of services from the opposite party no.2. All the services were rendered in a good and proper manner. As explained in service book the minor problem may occur due to improper use and lack of care. The complainant has taken services from the opposite party no.2 who have verified the services requested and checked the vehicle. The complainant took delivery from the opposite party no.2 and started using the vehicle. After service there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and, therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in proof of her case, filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A20 marked while the opposite party no.1 filed the affidavit evidence of its Area Service Manager and got Exs.B1 to B7 marked.
5. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that if any vehicle after purchase taken to the service center number of times within a period of a month, if the vehicle continued the same problem, it amounts to deficiency of service and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of ₹15,000/- together with costs of ₹2,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider the documents filed by the complainant in support of her case. Though the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay only meagre amount of ₹15,000/- towards compensation. The District Forum ignored the problems faced by the complainant due to defective vehicle in granting the reliefs. Therefore, she prayed that the amount claimed be paid to her.
7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased TVS WEgo BS manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for Rs.53,800/- from the opposite party no.2 and the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e., 29.11.2011 is not disputed. The complainant claimed that the opposite party had sold her a defective vehicle whereas the opposite parties had contended that the vehicle sold to the complainant does not suffer from any defect or problem whatsoever. On 4.12.2011 and 06.12.2011 the complainant had taken the vehicle to the opposite party no.2 for rectification of the defect. When the said problem could not be rectified the complainant again taken the vehicle on number of times i.e., on 28.12.2011, 27.01.2012, 24.02.2012, 12.03.2012, 22.03.2012, 10.4.2012, 19.04.2012 and 18.05.2012 but the problem said to have been continued to exist. Ex.B1 dated 28.12.2011 is the job card of the opposite party no.2 for the first service, wherein the complainant mentioned about left side handle not working and handle right pulling. Ex.B2 dated 27.1.2012 is the job card of the opposite party for the second free service in which also the complainant mentioned about right side handle pulling. Similarly, Exs.B3 and B4 dated 22.02.2012 and 18.05.2012 are the job cards of the opposite party no.2 wherein also the complainant mentioned the right side handle pulling. Thereafter when the said problem could not be rectified by the opposite party no.2, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 07.06.2012 which was marked as A10, to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 calling upon them to immediately change the vehicle and handover a new vehicle or in the alternative to refund the amount of ₹53,800/- with interest and damages. To the said legal notice the opposite parties gave replies dated 04.07.2012 which were marked as Ex.A13 and A14 wherein they stated that though the complainant met the Territory Manager Service of TVSM at opposite party no.2 workshop stating that she would bring the vehicle but she has not brought the subject vehicle to the authorized service center. As stated in the replies of the opposite parties the complainant failed to take the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party no.2. Of course, the vehicle of the complainant had suffered with some problem like right hand side pulling for that the opposite party had done whatever he had to without demanding any service charges.
9. The complainant has not filed any proof or evidence of expert showing that the vehicle had been suffering from manufacturing defect as stated by the complainant. In the absence of evidence of expert, the vehicle merely suffering with right hand side pulling could not be said to be suffering from manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 had attended to whatever defects that were pointed out. It did not charge any service charges. In fact, the complainant, as stated by her in her complaint itself that she drove the vehicle upto 2258 kms.
10. Even in the case of manufacturing defect of a vehicle, the vehicle in toto cannot be ordered to be replaced in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs Susheel Kumar Gabtora reported in AIR 2006 SCC 1586 wherein the Supreme Court opined that warranty condition referred only to the replacement of the defective part and not of the car. In another case, the Hon’ble National Commission held in M/s TELCO Ltd., another Vs. M.Moosa, 1986-94 page 1367 (NS) it was held that 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act authorizes the forum to have the defects removed even if there are numerous defects which can be rectified and that it would be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we do not find that the complainant is entitled to the replacement of motor cycle or refund of its cost. However, taking into consideration of frequent complaints relating to the pulling of right hand side handle the District Forum awarded ₹15,000/- towards replacement of handle which in our view is reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Forum.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 13.03.2017
