Date of Complaint :08/07/2014

                                        Date of Disposal :21/08/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI,

JUDGEMENT BY SRI. V.A. PATIL, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

     The complainant has filed this complaint alleging the deficiency of service against the opponents.

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that, on 21/03/2013 the complainant purchased a new “TATA WINNER” vehicle from the opponent No.1 and the said vehicle covers guaranty and warranty for one year.As there is a defect in the starter assembly the complainant approached the opponent No.1 on 23/07/2013.The opponent No.1 got it repaired through Nayak Diesels and Electricals.The opponent no.2 charged a sum of Rs.4,599/-being the cost of repair.The complainant paid the same to the opponent No.2 and then asked to consider the said repair charges under warranty and to reimburse the said cost of repair.But the opponent No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant.Hence, the complainant got issued the legal notice to the opponent No.1 on 29/07/2013, and after receipt of the said notice the opponent No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant by its letter dated 05/08/2013 by making false and untenable allegation.

    

        Hence alleging the deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents and pray for refund of the repair cost of Rs.4,599/- with interest and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and the cost of the complaint.

    

2. The opponent No.1 appeared through its council and filed the objections as under;

    

        It is admitted by the opponent that the complainant had purchased the “TATA WINNER” on 21/03/2013.  It is also admitted that on 23/07/2013 the complainant approached this opponent for starter assembly problems in the said vehicle.  It is also admitted that the opponent No.1 got it repaired through Nayak Diesels and Electricals Mangalore.  It is also admitted that the complainant had paid the repair cost of Rs.4,599/-.  The complainant then asked the opponent to consider the said repair charges under warranty and reimburse the said amount, as the said problem is due to mechanical defects.  But the opponent no.1 rejected the same by denying the same and it also says that they have not charged the repair cost but the Nayak Diesel and Electricals of Mangalore have charged and the opponent No.2 has rejected to cover the said problem under the warranty, alleging that the said problem is due to over cranking or improper switching.  So it cannot be considered under warranty.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their side and they are not liable to pay the compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

    

3. The notice is sent to opponent No.2 after impleading and the opponent No.2 placed exparte, but files the objections through post on 14/01/2015, which reveals as follows;

    

        That the opponent No.2 Nayak Diesels and Electricals being the authorized Bosch Spare Parts dealers and distributors they have verified the said issue and state that the damaged part do not qualify the warranty standards and is not eligible for replacement.  Further the opponent No.2 states that the complainant has not contacted directly and only M/s Aravind Motors have approached them as the customer for replacement of the said part.  Further the opponent No.2 says that they being the only authorized dealers of such parts used by TATA MOTORS, M/s Aravind Motors Pvt.Ltd. (OP-1)being only responsible for the act and on behalf of “TATA MOTORS” as an agent for all such defects and complaints.  Further they pray to relieve them from being unnecessarily engrossing in the complaint for no fault of them. 

    

4. The complainant and the opponent No.1 have filed their respective affidavits along with the documents.Heard both the sides and now the points that arise for our consideration are as under;

    

5. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP 1 or 2 as alleged in the complainant?

    

6. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

    

7. What order?

    

          The findings on the above points are as follows;

                       Point No.1 :- Affirmative

                       Point No.2 :- Affirmative

                       Point No.3 :- As per the final order  

                     R E A S O N S

1. Point No.1 and 2 :- It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the new vehicle from opponent No.1 on 21/03/2013, and the said vehicle covers warranty and guaranty for one year from the date of purchase.  As there is the defect with the starter assembly the complainant approached the opponent no.1 on 23/07/2013.  The opponent No.1 got it repaired through opponent no.2.  The complainant had paid the repair charges also and then asked to consider the said repair charges, under the warranty and asked to reimburse the said sum.  But the opponent No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that, the vehicle is purchased under the warranty and guaranty of one year.  Hence, the defect in the starter assembly is within the said period and he is entitle for the reimbursement of the repair charges and there is the deficiency of service by the opponent.

    

2. The affidavit coupled with the documents discloses that, there is the defect in the starter assembly and the same is repaired with opponent No.2 and the complainant had paid the repair charges of Rs.4,599/-to the opponent No.2.It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle on 21/03/2013 and the defect occurred on 23/07/2013, i.e., with in the period of four months from the date of purchase and the reason shown for the defect is due to over cranking or improper switching.Hence, the starter motor has been overhauled and the amount of Rs.4599/- is charged.

    

3. It may be true that the TATA MOTORS company is very clearly mentioned in their customer service manual book, as per page no.162 para 4 says that “ As for such as tyres, batteries, transfer case, rubber parts, ………………… not manufactured by Tata Motors, but supplied by other parties, this warranty shall not apply, but ………………… ………………………………………………………………………… in respect of such parts.It is further stated that the starter assembly parts are manufactured by BOSCH Company and the OP No.2 is the authorized servicer of the same and the concerned manufacturer is liable for the same and the opponent No.1 nowhere directly concerned to the said matter.

    

4. On going through the documents submitted by the parties, the complainant/ purchaser of the vehicle cannot be expected to know the names, and addresses of the manufacturers of each and every part of the vehicle.In the present case the complainant has purchased the vehicle trusting the name of the reputed TATA MOTORS COMPANY.Admittedly the problem with the starter assembly started within the period from 21/03/2013 to 23/07/2013, i.e., within four months from the date of purchase.Under these circumstances the opponent No.1 ought to have repaired the said starter assembly without charging anything.It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.4,599/- towards repair over hauling charges, even if the said defect is rectified only by over hauling the same is also within the warranty period.

5. On perusal of the complaint averments and the objections of the opponent No.1 and 2 and the documents filed by both the parties and their affidavit, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from opponent No.1.The complainant is entitle to receive back the sum of Rs.4,599/- paid towards the overhauling charges (which falls within the warranty period ) from opponent No.1.As the opponent No.2 is no way concerned to the matter and opponent No.2 is unknown to the complainant.The complaint against opponent No.2 is dismissed.

    

6. In view of the above following;

   O R D E R

7. The complaint is allowed in part.

8. The opponent No.1 shall pay Rs.4,599/-(Four thousand five hundred and ninety nine only) along with 10% p.a.interest from 26/07/2013 along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only ) and Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only ) being the cost of the proceedings.

9. The opponent No.1 shall pay the above said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.

10. The complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount as per the law provides.

11. The complaint against OP-2 is dismissed.

12. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

     

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 21^st  day of AUGUST 2015)

      (LATHA.M.S.)            (V.A. PATIL)        (K.D. PARVATHY)        

         MEMBER               PRESIDENT               MEMBER

 ANNEXURE