PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of February 2012
Filed on : 31/12/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.677/2009
Between
M/s. Shiji Sinto, : Complainant
W/o. Sinto Joseph,Kandathil house, (By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.
Thoppil Thrikkakara P.O., Kochi-21. Penta Queen, Padivattom,
Cochin-17)
Vs.
1.Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Opp. South Gate of Shipyard, (By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker,
M.G. Road, Kochi-15. Kombara Jun., Ernakulam
Rep. by its Genernal Manager. North P.O., Kochi-18.)
2. Maruti Udyog Ltd., (By Adv. Anto Thomas,
Palam Gurgaon road, V. Santharam & Associates
Gurgaon-122 015. Vrindavan, 1st Floor, 40/7777
Rep. by its General Manager. T.D. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin-35)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 21-12-2006 the complainant purchased a Zen car from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 3,73,947/-. The opposite parties provided 2 years warranty to the vehicle. Thereafter they granted 2 years extended warranty too. The power steering system of the vehicle had not been working properly. The 1st opposite party attempted to rectify the defect but they failed to rectify the same. In addition to the above complaint there was unusual sound when the gears are shifted and it was also found very difficult to put the first and reverse gears. Even after the repairs done by the 1st opposite party the above defects persist that too within the warranty period. Thus the complainant is before us with the following reliefs against the opposite parties
i. to direct the opposite parties to cure the defects of the gear system and power steering system
ii. if the above defects are not curable direct the opposite parties either to replace the car with a new one or to refund the price.
iii. to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant
2. The version of the 1st opposite party
The complaint is barred by limitation since the complainant has purchased the car on 21-12-2006 and the alleged cause of action had arisen on 27-06-2009. On 15-01-2007 the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to repair the tightness of the steering and on 20-01-2007 he approached the 1st opposite party to repair the gear shifting problem. The 1st opposite party duly attended to and rectified the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter on 20-03-2007, 10-01-2007, 08-08-2008, 18-08-2008, 20-08-2008 and 11-02-2009 the 1st opposite party repaired the defects as described by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. The defense of the 2nd opposite party.
The subject car is free from any manufacturing defect. The 1st opposite party had duly repaired the defects reported by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. However the complainant did not obtain 2nd and 3rd free periodical services on completion of 5000 kms or 6 months and 10000 kms or 12 months from the date of purchase which ever happen first as stated in the warranty. The complainant is making false averments without any material on record with an ulterior motive to mislead this Forum and to obtain undue gains. The 2nd opposite party is not liable to replace the vehicle as claimed by the complainant. The complaint is devoid of merits and the complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party.
4. The expert commissioner was examined as PW1 and his report was marked as Ext. C1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1st opposite party. Exts. B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party. Head the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The points that came up for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the
defects of the car rectified ?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle
replaced or to get its price refunded. ?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
6. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant purchased the car in question from the 1st opposite party on 20-12-2006 which manufactured by the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 3,73,947/- evidenced by Ext. A1 vehicle invoice. Two years normal warranty and 2 years extended warranty has been provided by the 2nd opposite party evident from Exts. B2 and B3 warranty policy. It is not in dispute that time and again the complainant had to approach the 1st opposite party to get her vehicle repaired. According to the complainant the defects of the vehicle still persist and she is entitled to get the defects rectified and if it is not in a repairable condition, she is entitled to get the vehicle replaced or to get its price refunded. The 1st opposite party vehemently refuted the averments of the complainant and contended that the vehicle is free from any defects. Though they have not been able to controvert the contentions of the complainant.
7. At the instance of the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum, he was examined as PW1 and his report was marked as Ext. C1. In Ex. C1 the conclusion of the expert commissioner is as follows:
“After inspecting and test driving the vehicle KL-07-BE-4080 I believe that the gear shift problem raised by the customer is genuine and requires attention. Whereas the power steering re-centring issue of electronic power streering is a characteristic of the elecronic power steering system and are faced by many people accustomed to vehicles employing normal and hydraulic power steering.”
During examination PW1 deposed that he could not find any fault with the power steering system of the car. Except for that there was tightness in gear shifting and there was difficulty in gear shifting and also there was unusual sound from the gear system. Further he stated that the above defects could be rectified by repair of the same.
7. Point No. ii. Since the first point is cleared legally the further discussion in this point only calls for caution.
8. Point No. iii. The complainant having been unnecessarily drawn into such frivolous litigation whereby he has necessary had to expend. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded.
9. In view of the above uncontroverted finding of PW1 we are of the firm view that the opposite parties are liable to and directed to rectify the defects of the gear system and the unusual sound entitled during shift of gears. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings. Answered accordingly.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the opposite parties shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of February 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 20-12-2006
A2 : Copy of job card dt. 28/10/2008
A3 : Copy of Vehicle History
A4 : Copy of letter of Shiji Sinto
A5 :
C1 : Commission report
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of dealership agreement
B1(a) : limit of authority
B2 : Warranty policy etc.
B3 : Term etc.
B3(a): Warranty conditions and coverage
B4 : Job card dt. 15-01-2007
B5 : Job card dt. 31-01-2007
B6 : Job card dt. 20-03-2007
B7 : Job card dt. 10-04-2007
B8 : Job card dt. 23-08-2008
B8(a): Activity codes
B9 : Copy of e-mail
B9(a): Activity codes
Depositions:
PW1:
