Complaint filed on: 24.12.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 12.04.2018

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.2196/2014

DATED THIS THE 12^th APRIL OF 2018

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

H.S.Gopinath,

S/o H.T.Somashekar Reddy,

Aged about 53 years,

R/at No.1138, 21^st  Cross, 14^th Main, HSR Layout,

Bangalore-560 100.

By Adv.Sri.Mithun Gerahalli

V/s

Opposite party/s

1. Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited.,

GM India Registered Office

Block B, Chandrapura 

Industrial Estate, Halol-

389351, Pamchmahals District,

Gujarath, India

2. General Motor Technical Centre India,

(GMTCI) Units 4-8, 3^rd Floor,

Creator Building,

International Tech Park,

White Field Road, Bangalore-560066.

3.  Trident Automobiles (P) Limited.,

122/1, C.Shankar Reddy Layout, Kalyannagar, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-43.

By Adv.Sri. Adarsh Gangal

4. KROPEX INDIA LIMITED.,

No.49/1, Singanasandra,

Hosur Main Road,

Bangalore-560 068

EXPARTE

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

            1.        The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 to 4 (herein after referred as OPs 1 to 4) for the reliefs of (a) the OP 1 and 2 being the manufacturer of the car having wholly failed in discharging their duties in fair trade and are guilty of deficiency of services, adopting unfair and restrictive trade practices and providing deficient goods, they shall take back the car and be liable to pay sum of Rs.13,34,493/- along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of invoice dt.7.8.2010 being the cost of the car supplied to the complainant as the said car has defective clutch part which are very expensive and requires repeated replacements, hence it would economically burdensome to maintain the car

(b) or in the alternative the Ops shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,786/- only along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of 2^nd OP i.e., 11.07.2013 towards the cost raised for the clutch plate and assembly replacement at Sl.No.4,5,6,7 and 12 of the invoice dt.4.7.2013.

(c) There is no doubt that the complainant has to suffer mental agony in taking delivery of a defective car after having paid for a brand new car and in taking the car again and again to the dealer for repairs. For this mental agony and torture, the Ops shall jointly and severally shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only.

(d) the complainant is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.25000/- only towards compensation for hardship, loss and for having unnecessarily been drawn into litigation by the Ops jointly or severally.

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that,he has purchased a vehicle of make Chevrolet Cruze in white Diamond Tri Coat Colour, Model No.VCDI LTX BS4 bearing Regn No.KA-01-MF-8479 and engine No.Z20S1346981K with key No.Z4298 (the car or vehicle), manufactured by General Motors from its authorized dealer viz., 3^rd OP i.e., Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., at Bangalore on 7.8.2010 vide their Invoice No.T00398, for a sum of Rs.13,34,493/- only.

          3.      The complainant submits that the General Motors is an American Car Company manufacturing cars in America and have also started selling cars in India with its technical office at the address stated at 2^nd OP. Having reposed immense faith and good will associated with the OP 1 and 2 company, the complainant purchased the car. The car has been used for private purpose only. The complainant being a normal man in the normal circumstances had reposed good faith, great confidence and trust on the worthiness and reputation of the manufacturer i.e. OP 1 and 2.

          4.      The vehicle purchased by the complainant was exclusively being used by him as a direct consumer for this personal use without being used for any commercial purposes for making profit. The vehicle was being used with utmost care and caution as a normal prudent man would do in the like circumstances and has been periodically getting the vehicle serviced from time to time as scheduled in the service manual.

          5.      The complainant submits that within a short span of two years of purchase i.e. April- May 2012 for the mileage recording of 23,067 KMs., which is well within the warranty period of 3 years and running 1,00,000 KMs., the vehicle went out of order and the vehicle was towed to Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., i.e., OP-3 who is the General Motors authorized service centre. The said OP-1 diagnosed the problem as “CLUTCH PLATE BREAKDOWN” on 21.4.2012 and have repaired the vehicle by replacing the broken clutch plate with brand new clutch plate and assembly such as CYLINDER, CLU ACTR (CLUTCH RLS), PLATE-CLU PRESS, PLATE CLU- DRVN, FLYWHEEL, LABOUR as per the invoice. In this context, he expressed his anguish as to how a clutch could break down at 23,067 Kms which is very less mileage and considering the fact it is an expensive sedan and FLYWHEEL being an expensive spare part of the clutch assembly. The cost of the flywheel along was Rs.29,624.56 plus Vat, labour during the 1^st repair on 24.4.2012.

          6.      The complainant submits that he questioned how such an expensive spare part required replacement within running only 23,067 kms as compared to other cars where such expensive spare part did not require replacement until 4 to 5 years and even after running more than 50,000 kms and in some cars upto 80,000 kms. The fact that the flywheel being such an expensive part has broken down when the vehicle was driven very less has been admitted in the reply notice of OP-3. Hence, the said replacement was done free of cost vide their invoice No.001106 dt.24.4.2012 which was billed as ‘NIL’.

          7.      The complainant submits that subsequently, on the vehicle running for only 13,671 kms and within one year from the 1^st replacement above i.e, at the mileage reading of 36,738 kms which is also well within a warranty period of 3 years and mileage of 1,00,000 kms, the vehicle once again went out of order and the vehicle was taken to the closest service station from place to break down i.e., to KROPEX INDIA LIMITED., i.e., the OP-4 herein, who is also an authorized GM service centre. On diagnosis, they reported that it was clutch plate breakdown and entire clutch plate and assembly required replacement and gave an estimation of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- towards repairs and replacement of clutch.

          8.      The complainant submits that on knowing that the clutch plate and flywheel which was all replaced few months ago and had just run 13,671 kms from earlier replacement, he demanded that the service and replacement should be done at no charge and also gave a notice dt.24.6.2013. The said authorized repairer attended to the repairs and again replaced the clutch plate and raised an invoice on 4.7.2013 i.e., within one year of the previous repair and replacement. For such repair and replacement, the said OP-4 charged a sum of Rs,85,875/- the break up of which is Rs.47,386.90 towards clutch plate replacement, Rs.3,400/- towards labour charges and the remaining amount towards other repairs vide their invoice No.003302 dt.4.7.2013. The complainant submits that the OP-4 who has attended to the repairs and replacement against payments should not have charged anything for the same as M/s KROPEX INDIA LIMITED., is an authorized service centre and the clutch plate was replaced just 11 months back by the OP-3 who is none other than their counterpart as both of them are authorized service centres and their responsibilities are joint and several and go hand in hand. This repairs and replacement for a sum of Rs.85,875/- is against their estimate of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- as reported vide letter dt.28.6.2013 of the complainant, a) the General Motors India Private Limited., Gurgon, Haryana b) Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., Bangalore-560043. C) General Motors India Private Ltd., Panchanmahals, Gujarath and demanded that if they did not replace the same without charge, then the complainant would approach the Consumer Redressal Forum to agitate the rights.

          9.      The complainant submits on perusal of repair invoice bearing No.001106 dt.24.4.2012 for NIL amount of M/s Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., and repair invoice bearing No.003302 dt.4.7.2013 of KROPEX INDIA LIMITED for a sum of Rs.85,875/-, it is observed that the same parts which have been replaced by M/s Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., have  been once again replaced by M/s KRPOEX INDIA LIMITED. The said parts are CYLINDER, CLU ACTR, PLATE-CLU PRESS, PLATE CLU- DRVN, FLYWHEEL (which alone costed Rs.30,675/-).None of the above letters i.e., series of document NO.6 of the complainant have been replied.

          10.    The complainant submits that within a short span of one year from the previous replacement of the clutch plate and vehicle running for 13,671 kms, the clutch plate again went out of order against the warranty coverage of 1,00,000 kms, running or 3 years time period whichever is earlier. The performance standard after the 1^st replacement now is from bad to worse which is evident from the reply of the notice dt.7.9.2013 wherein the OP-3 admitted that one of the reasons to have replaced the said parts for free of cost was that the break down for the 1^st time was at 23067 kms and now the mileage for the 2^nd breakdown from the 1^st replacement even lesser i.e., 1367 kms. It gives room to a strong suspicion that the clutch plate and assembly in the vehicle at time of purchase, and the 2^nd clutch plate replaced by OP-3 are defective, were all of inferior and sub-standard quality and therefore have failed in its performance. The OP-1 being the car and spare part manufacturer, the authorized service centers sources their spare parts from the OP-1. The same was brought to the notice of the General Motors India Private Ltd., Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Panchannahals, Gujarath and General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.15, Echolar Industrial Area, Sector 32, Gurgoan-122001, Haryana, India, duly reporting clutch failures due to replacement of sub-standard quality clutch plates or defective car which was causing the problem. As the clutch is not visible to the naked eyes it may not even be out of place to state the original clutch plate in the new vehicle was sub-standard clutch plate and the clutch plate dramatically said to have been replaced was either of very much inferior or is the one which has been replaced with some cosmetic repairs carried out to the already defective clutch plate and assembly. Both the original clutch plate and assembly including the flywheel and the replaced clutch plate and flywheel are defective and sub-standard. If the original clutch plate and the replaced clutch plate were really good quality under any stretch of imagination it would not have failed within such short span of time. The inferior quality of clutch plate and assembly which came with the car and 1^st replacement was done on 24.4.2012 at the Op-2 service center and 2^nd replacement done on 4.7.2013 at the Op-3 service center clearly shows deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1 manufacturer on faulty clutch plate and assembly which came with the car especially the flywheel which is an expensive spare part which is now costing Rs.30,000/- should normally last 4 to 5 years or atleast 50,000 kms to 80,000 kms as in other cars. Further, the subsequent assembly billed at Sl No.4 to 7 and 12 of the invoice dt.4.7.2013 supplied by the OP-1 to the service centers of Op-2 which replaced the 1^st time also broke down again within 1 year or 13,671 kms from 1^st repair are defective. Now, for the 2^nd time, the clutch plate again broke down and was replaced by the OP-2 which was well within 3 years warranty period and the complainant was required shell down Rs.85,875/- towards clutch plate replacement because of the deficiency of service, unfair trade practice on part of the Ops.

          11.    The complainant submits that as a prudent man of normal human conduct in good faith, without having an iota of doubt on the worthiness of the manufacturer and genuineness in the quality of the vehicle has reposed a great confidence on OP-3, the original supplier of the vehicle and the OP-4 herein, the authorized GM service Centre i.e, M/s KROPEX INDIA LIMITED., has been unnecessarily victimized by the unfair trade practice and has to come down heavily by bearing undue cost and expenses without any tangible result.

          12.    The complainant submits that when the matter was referred to KROPEX India Ltd., the OP-4, they have opined that the clutch is a wear and tear part and therefore, the same is not covered under warranty and in order to be customer friendly and only as a gesture of goodwill the said clutch plate was replaced by M/s Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., free of cost and this cannot be done at all times at the same time admitting that on first occasion they change for free because the car had only run 23,067 kms. This irresponsible and evasive response goes to demonstrate the colossal deficiency of service on the part of both the manufacturer and also the authorized repairer who is hand in the gloves with the manufacturer to cover their lapses and undoubtedly it is an attempt to shield the OP-3. It may be noted though every part in the car is wear and tear but only the clutch plate and assembly has been breaking down on two occasions within a period of 1 year. It may not even be out of place to come out with a generalilzed statement and say that almost each and everything in this universe is subject to wear and tear and no exception can be taken to a clutch plate and assembly.

          13.    The complainant submits that a brand new clutch plate and clutch assembly of the brand new vehicle went out of order twice within span of one year at the mileage coverage of 23,067 kms., which is however been dramatically and colourably said to have been replaced by a brand new clutch plate and assembly free of cost. This also to a great surprise went out of order within another short span of one year and mileage coverage of 13,371 kms. From the 1^st replacement, which has been replaced at an exorbitant cost of Rs.85,875/- against an estimation of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. This is clearly an indication of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice being resorted to by installing inferior and sub-standard clutch plates, and as to why clutch plate alone is going out time and again is a serious matter to be considered with a suspicious eye.

          14.    The complainant further submits that a notice has been served on all the above 4 Ops, as the OP-4 should have replaced the clutch plate replacement for free of cost, but instead charged Rs.85,875/- and further Ops 1 and 2 being manufacturers of the car and also the spare parts, and also OP-3 who replaced the clutch plate on the 1^st occasion are all jointly and severally liable to replace the defective car with repeated clutch plate failures or in the alternative to pay for the 2^nd replacement of clutch plate by reimbursing the bill bearing No.003302 of Rs.85,875/- already paid vide receipt No.10150 and are also liable to either return the cost of car as the complainant has no faith in the car quality and compensate the complainant towards hardship faced by the complainant on repeated occasion to having to leave the car for repair and also for having suffered unnecessary mental agony and misery to having to face with this situation of negotiating with the Ops, advocates and approaching this Forum for no fault of the complainant.

          15.    The complainant further submits that he got issued legal notice dt.1.8.2013 to the Ops seeking reimbursement of the clutch plate and clutch assembly charges charged by OP-4. However, the Op 3 and 4 denied to pay the said charges vide their reply notice dt.7.9.2013. Hence, on these grounds and other grounds pray for allowing the complaint.

          16.    The notices were ordered to the Ops. Amongst them, the Op 1 to 3 did appear through their counsel. OP-4 absent, hence placed exparte. The OP1 and 2 filed joint version and OP-3 filed separate version. The sums substance of the version filed by the OP 1 to 3 are denial in the nature. The OP 1 to 3 admits in respect of purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant from the OP-3. The OP 1 to 3 have taken specific plea stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable since he has suppressed the material facts. It is also the specific case of the OP 1 and 2 that the OP-1 is a group company of General Motors India Private Limited., The said company has manufacturing the cars with due care and caution which are international quality standards and the same are sold throughout India.

17.    The OP-1 and 2 have specifically stated that the complainant has purchased Chevrolet Cruze car bearing registration No.KA 01 MF 8479 (herein after referred as said car). The said car was driven about  36,740 kms and within the said mileage, the car was brought for servicing 3 (three) times due to accidents caused to the said car by the complainant/driver, apart from other scheduled general checkup/servicing. The same is also evident from the copy of the vehicle history card of the said. The contents of the said vehicle history stated as under:

On 7.8.2010, the complainant purchased the Chevrolet Cruze car bearing registration No.KA-01 MF 8479

On 23.9.2010, the car was brought for reassurance check-up with odometer reading 1189 kms.

On 29.12.2010, the car was brought for first free service, with odometer reading 5030 kms

On 3.5.2011, the car was brought for second free service, with odometer reading 10,675 kms.

On 5.5.2011, the car was brought for accidental repair, with odometer reading 10,679 kms

On 20.9.2011, the car was brought for accident repair, with odometer reading 15,165 kms

On 27.9.2011, the car was brought for 15,000 kms service

On 11.2.2012, the car was brought for paid service, with odometer reading 20,380 kms

On 21.4.2012, car brought with complaint gear not shifting for the car for clutch assembly replacement, with odometer reading 23,067 kms, (free clutch assembly replacement done)

On 5.6.2012, car brought for battery replacement, with odometer 24,852 kms.

On 8.11.2012, car was brought for paid service, with odometer reading 29,938 kms

On 31.12.2012, car was brought for accidental repair, with odometer reading 31, 631 kms

On 25.3.2013, car was brought for brake pads replacement, with odometer reading 34,400 kms.

On 17.6.2013, car brought with complaint gear not engaging and for paid service, with odometer reading 36,738 kms (clutch plate completely worn out (half clutch driven)

On 10.7.2013, car was brought for front bumper L/H side sport painting, with odometer reading 36,743 kms and subsequent services, not relevant for the above case.

          18.    The damage caused to the clutch plate and flywheel car is due to driving the car with half clutch by the complainant/its driver and not due to any inferior or sub-standard quality of the parts replaced as falsely alleged by the complainant. Any car driven with half clutch continuously will lead wearing out of clutch plate and allied components speedily. The clutch-plate, fly wheel and allied components are consumable articles subject to wear and tear and are to be periodically replaced by the owners themselves. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that the clutch plate, fly wheel and allied components were of inferior and/or sub-standard quality is false and misleading.

          19.    Further, the allegations in Para-3 to 21 are specifically denied by the Op 1 and 2 by giving reasonable explanation. The OP-3 is the seller of the said vehicle.

          20.    The sum and substance of the contention taken by OP No.3 are similar to that of version filed by the Op 1 and 2. The OP 1 to 3 specifically stated that once the replacement of the clutch was made without raising invoice was as goodwill gesture and nothing more than that. On these grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          21. The complainant to substantiate his case, filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-A1 to A11 and close aside. Among the Ops none of them filed their affidavit evidence. But anyhow, the documents produced by the OP 1 and 2 are marked as Ex-B1 to B3.

          22.   The complainant as well as the Ops 1 to 3 filed written arguments. Heard learned counsel for the complainant and also the Ops had placed reliance and available materials on record.

23. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the said car suffered manufacturing defects?
2. Whether the clutch plates are covered by the warranty cover?
3. Whether the Ops rendered deficiency of service?
4. What order ?

24.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point no.1: In the Negative  

Point no.2: In the Negative 

Point no.3: In the Negative 

Point no.4: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

25. Point No.1 to 3:  Since Point No.1 to 3 are interconnected, hence, we have taken these points together for discussion just to avoid the repetition of facts.

26.   We have briefly stated the facts of the case in the foregoing paragraphs. With regard to the relief sought by the complainant are found in Para No.21 a,b,c,d of the complaint. First prayer is OP 1 and 2 being the manufacturer of the car having wholly failed in discharging their duties in fair trade and are guilty of deficiency of services, adopting unfair and restrictive trade practices and providing deficient goods, they shall take back the car and be liable to pay sum of Rs.13,34,493/- along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of invoice dt.7.8.2010 being the cost of the car supplied to the complainant as the said car has defective clutch part which are very expensive and requires repeated replacements, hence it would economically burdensome to maintain the car. With regard to the adopting unfair and restrictive trade practice and providing deficient goods are concerned, the complainant never stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the said car. Even assuming for a moment that there is a manufacturing defect, the same is to be proved by way of expert opinion. In the instant case, there is no expert report with regard to the manufacturing defect if any in the said car. So the question of considering the prayer (a) does not arise.  

          27.   Coming to the prayer (b) i.e., in the alternative the Ops shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,786/- only along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of 2^nd OP i.e., 11.07.2013 towards the cost raised for the clutch plate and assembly replacement at Sl.No.4,5,6,7 and 12 of the invoice dt.4.7.2013. The say of the complainant is that the first clutch replacement was within the warranty period for which no invoice was raised i.e. replaced without cost.  With regard to the 2^nd replacement is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated in Para-8 of his complaint that subsequently, the said car running for only 13,671 kms and within one year from the 1^st replacement above i.e, at the mileage reading of 36,738 kms which is also well within a warranty period of 3 years and mileage of 1,00,000 kms, the said car was once again went out of order and taken to the closest service station from place to break down i.e., to KROPEX INDIA LIMITED., i.e., the OP-4, who is also an authorized GM service centre. On diagnosis, they reported that it was clutch plate breakdown and entire clutch plate and assembly required replacement and given an estimation of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- towards repairs and replacement of clutch. On knowing that the clutch plate and flywheel which was all replaced few months ago and he had just run 13,671 kms from earlier replacement and he demanded at the service centre and replaced should be done at no charge. The authorized repairer attended to the repairs and again replaced the clutch plate and raised an invoice on 4.7.2013 i.e., within one year of the previous repair and replacement. For such repair and replacement, the OP-4 charged a sum of Rs,85,875/- the break up of which is Rs.47,386.90 towards clutch plate replacement, Rs.3,400/- towards labour charges and the remaining amount towards other repairs vide their invoice No.003302 dt.4.7.2013 marked as Ex-A5. Hence, charging of the said car does not arise since the car was in warranty period, hence, the Op-4 ought not to have raised the said invoice bill.

          28.   To falsify this claim made by the complainant, the Ops have specifically taken up the contention that the clutch of the said car comes under the consumable parts which does not have any warranty which cannot be replaced free of cost even though the said car was under the warranty. In this context, the OP 1 and 2 placed reliance and the unreported decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in FA No.564 of 2011 in the case of Kaparapu Pothuraju V/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., and another, represented by its Managing Director wherein in the relevant Paras 13 to 19 reads thus:

          13. The job cards would show that there was no consisting problem regarding the low pick up as was reported by the appellant. The vehicle covered a distance of 743 kms in 28 days by the date of first servicing and 743 kms in 84 days as on the date of second servicing. The problem of low pick up as persistently complained by the appellant in the complaint is not found even in the job card on the occasion of the third servicing. The vehicle covered distance of 4695 kms by the date of third servicing and the problem in regard to the clutch plates was found for the first time by the second respondent during the third servicing of the vehicle.

        14.   As the clutch plates are not covered by the ambit of the warranty, the second respondent replaced them with new clutch plates for 661/- paid by the appellant. The appellant sought for the amount on the premise that the clutch plates are replaced within the warranty period. It is to be noted that each and every part needed to be replaced will not be replaced free of charge within the warranty period. Those items of the vehicle which are exclusively covered by the scope of warranty would be replaced free of charge within warranty period.

        15. clutch plates are excluded from the scope of warranty coverage. As such the appellant cannot seek for refund of the amount spent for replacement of clutch plates done during third servicing within the warranty period. The problem of clutch plates cropped up during the fourth servicing on 14.11.2009. This time, however the second respondent replaced them free of charge on the request of the appellant as a good will gesture. As such the only persistent problem was with the clutch plates which are beyond the scope and ambit of warranty in as much as the vehicle surpassed the warranty period.

        16.   It is settled law that the vehicle can be ordered to be replaced only on proof thereof by the purchaser of the vehicle. The appellant tough contended that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, he had not paid much focus on the aspect and did not examine any expert to the effect. As such the relief for replacement of the vehicle cannot be granted. The appellant failed to show that the complaint of poor pick up of the vehicle was made during the first servicing, second servicing and the third servicing of the vehicle. The burning out of the clutch plates is not covered by the warranty cover and only as a good will gesture the second respondent replaced the clutch plates during the fourth servicing of the vehicle. In absence of contractual liability, the second respondent cannot be found fault with for charging the appellant for replacement of the clutch plates of the vehicle.

        17. The typographical mistake crept in mentioning the distance covered by the vehicle as 89543/- instead of 8453/- in the order of the District Forum has not in any manner affected the finding in as much as specific finding was returned in regard to failure of the appellant to prove the deficiency in service alleged by the appellants as under:

Moreover, Ex.A5 Owner’s Manual consisting warranty certificate at Page 28 to 31 clearly shows that the vehicle warranty was for 2 years or 30,000 kilometers whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale. It also makes it clear at point 2 part c in page 30 that parts subjected to clear wear and tear like clutch plates, brakeshoes, chain, sockets, fork, oil seal, spark plug, control cables, Brake pads are excluded from the scope of warranty replacement. Inspite of this the complainant filed this complaint wholly based on the defective working of the clutch plates which was only the natural result of daily wear and tear. As such, we hold that the wear and tear of the clutch plates does not amount to a manufacturing defect and as such, the claim put forth by the complainant is misconceived and untenable on all counts and so the complaint itself becomes liable to be dismissed.

18.   The District Forum has not committed any factual or legal error in arriving at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. We do not find any merit in the appeal.

19.   In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs.

          29.    We have placed reliance on the contents of the above said reasons, we find there is a considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP 1 to 3 for the simple reasons that clutch is comes under the consumable parts which do not have any warranty. Even though the clutch was replaced during the warranty period, for which the complainant is to be paid for it. Accordingly, the Op-4 has charged for the replacement of the clutch as shown in the invoice No.003302 dt.4.7.2013 marked as Ex-A5. When such being the fact, we come to the conclusion that there is no manufacturing defect. Further, the clutch plates are not covered under warranty even though the said car found to be in the warranty period, hence, rendering deficiency of service by the OP 1 to 3 does not arise. Accordingly, we answered Points 1 to 3.   

30. Point No.4: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed devoid of merits.

Looking into the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 12^th April 2018).

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Gopinath, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Shrisha Kadandale, who being the Divisional Manager of Op 1 and 2 was examined.

Sri.Narasimhan G.N., who being the Asst.General Manager Admin of OP-3 was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP 1 and 2