BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 28.12.2015

Date of Order :03.10.2019

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuraikose, President

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member.

CC.No.710/2016

Between

ORDER

V.Ramachandran, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant Sri.Abraham stated in his complaint that he had purchased a Honda City Car from Kottayam Branch of the opposite party on 28.08.2014. The car met with an accident on 23.03.2016. The car was taken to the 2^nd opposite party on the next day by a recovery van. The car was returned to the complainant on 30.05.2016 after collecting Rs.1,97,039/- towards the repairing charges. But on that day itself the complainant noticed that pressure of water inside the left portion of the car and emanation of abnormal sound from the top back side of the car. The matter was brought into the notice of the 2^nd opposite party. They apologized for the defects and gave the reason for the water entry as the irresponsible water service by their employees and drained out the water. They further promised to rectify the sound problem by the next service due. The leakage resurfaced within a few days and the car was again taken to the 2^nd opposite party. The car was delivered after a whole days check up by the 2^nd opposite party saying that the complaint is cured. It was also informed that the sound problem would be rectified by the next periodic check. Even after the periodical services they failed to rectify the defect. The leakage problem and abnormal sound problem are still persisting. The failure on the part of the 2^nd opposite party even after repeated efforts would show that those defects are beyond any repair. Had the 2^nd opposite party conducted a thorough checkup after completing the repair work, the present complaints could have been rectified. Hence the defects are due to the purposeful negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. Hence the complainant has asked for a compensation for Rs.4.52 Lakh from the opposite party and filed the complaint before the Forum.

Notices were sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties from this Forum and the opposite parties filed their version in response to the notices received by them.

Version of the 1^st opposite party

It is submitted that the complaint shall not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in trade practice or defect in the complaint and Section 2 (1) (f) (g) and (r) of the Act. The allegation raised by the complainant in the present case is mainly pertains to the after sale/accidental services by the dealer. In fact, whatever grievances the complainant has alleged in the complaint pertains to dealership ie., pertaining to the 2^nd opposite party and that too about an after sale service provided by them. Therefore, in the case of absence of any specific allegation impleading the respondent is baseless and 1^st opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Version of the 2^nd opposite party

The 2^nd opposite party contended in their version that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant had purchased the vehicle expending multiple lakh. While defining the term ‘consumer’ extended the benefit to the Act to those who is making purchase for earning their livelihood. Hence the complainant shall not be allowed to avail the benefit of the Act.

The vehicle was reported to have sustained an accident and its front right side was damaged. Since the complaint himself had taken the insurance of the vehicle directly from New India Assurance Company, he had arranged the survey to be conducted on the vehicle for claiming insurance coverage. The survey was conducted on the vehicle only on 23.03.2016. Since, the repair works could be commenced only after getting the approval from the surveyor, the 2^nd opposite party had to wait till the approval from the surveyor. The complainant had taken delivery of the car on 30.05.2016 by paying full amount of Rs.1,97,039/-. The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on full satisfaction after making due inspections. The complainant regarding the water leak is reported vide R.O. 1617-5366 dated 27.07.2016. The contention of the complainant that the water entry was due to the irresponsible water service by the employees of the 2^nd opposite party is stoutly denied. On examination the 2^nd opposite party had detected the water entering through the front side rubber grommet. The slight sound problem from the top back side of the body of the vehicle was also corrected by applying body sealant. Further on 12.08.2016 evening the said vehicle was reported at one Muvattupuzha service centre for clutch complaint and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the next day. The complainant have never asked for job cards and the work was done with high quality expertise. The actions of the opposite party is transparent. The complainant was fully convinced about the clearing of the issues. It is contended that this complaint is filed on an experimental basis and no bonafideds in filling the same.

The Forum examined the matter in detail. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant which marked as Exbt.A1 to A4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties?

3. Cost of the proceedings.

Issue No. (i)

On examination of the records and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the vehicle is purchased by the complainant on 28.08.2014 and the vehicle met with the accident on 23.03.2016. There is no records or evidences produced by the complainant to prove defects of the vehicle at any date prior to 23.03.2016. The vehicle met with an accident on 23.03.2016 and the alleged defects were detected only thereafter. Therefore, it can be derived that the alleged defects are formed after the accident. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be held liable for any compensation and therefore is to be excluded.

The complainant could not prove any deficiency of service, defects or unfair trade practices from the opposite parties and hence the 1^st issue is decided against the complainant.

Issue Nos (ii) and (iii)

Having found the issue No.(i) against the complainant, we have not considered and decided issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of October 2019.

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::

…................