DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2024.

                           Filed on: 01/12/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                               Member

C C NO. 397/2020

COMPLAINANT

Sanu.M.S. Managing Partner, Darshan Holidays, 4/250 Mangatt Bldg. Ochanthuruthu. P. O.Ernakulam District Pincode. 682508.

(Rep. by Adv. Reena Abraham, Room No. 216, KHCAA, Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex, High Court of Kerala, Kochi 682031)

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. 202-203, 2^nd Floor, Ceejay House, Worli, Mumbai-400018 represented by Managing Director

(Rep. by Adv. Sidharth Menon, V. Ajakumar, Vasil T.K., S7, Empire Building, Behind High Court of Kerala, Kochi 682018)

2. Muthoot Motors (Cochin), JLR Division, Vyttila P.O. Cochin-682019, Kerala. Represented by Sales Manager

(Rep. by Adv. John Prakash Bavakkat, Lexius, 1^st Floor, Metro Palace, Opp. North Railway Station, Ernakulam 18)

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President:

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

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, the managing partner of Darshan Holidays, a travel agency in Kerala, purchased two Jaguar XF vehicles from Muthoot Motors in December 2014 and August 2015. Issues with the headlamps of the second vehicle began one and a half years after its purchase, with the headlamps turning off during night drives. Despite multiple repairs during the warranty period, the problem persisted. Post-warranty, the service center identified a faulty electrical component needing replacement, costing Rs. 1,80,000, for which payment was demanded from the complainant.

The complainant alleges a deficiency in service, as the root cause of the headlamp issue, identified as a manufacturing defect, was not addressed during the warranty period. The first opposite party denied any replacement of the component post-warranty, leading to further complaints. The complainant has also experienced issues with sticky switches and a damaged AC compressor. The repeated failures to address these issues have purportedly caused the complainant severe mental agony, physical strain, and monetary loss.

The complainant is seeking compensation for the deficiency in service, mental agony, and the costs of replacing the defective component and legal expenses. The complainant stated that both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the issues and the resultant damages

2) Notice

The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties subsequently appeared and submitted their versions.

3). THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY

The complainant is seeking compensation totalling INR 2,90,000 for the replacement of headlamps, deficiency in service, mental agony, and other losses.

Opposite Party No. 1 stated that the vehicle does not contain any manufacturing defects, as evidenced by the resolution of headlamp concerns in 2017 at 31,756 km and a lack of issues until over 65,000 km. They assert that the vehicle was beyond the standard manufacturer’s warranty of 3 years or 1,00,000 km at the time of the complaint, rendering claims for free replacement baseless.

They state that the complaint of service deficiency should be directed at Opposite Party No. 2, the authorized retailer, not the manufacturer, due to the contractual and operational separation between them. They emphasize that their relationship with the retailer is principal-to-principal, shielding them from direct liability for the retailer's service issues.

Opposite Party No. 1 stated that the vehicle was used commercially, which under law, exempts it from being a subject of consumer complaints regarding manufacturing defects. They also note that the complaint about the headlamp issue from 2017 is barred by the limitation period set under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complaint was filed in December 2020.

They stated that the complainant has no direct consumer relationship with Jaguar Land Rover but only with the retailer. Opposite Party No. 1 cites multiple legal precedents to support their position that manufacturers are not liable for service deficiencies by independent retailers. They also highlight procedural issues with the complaint, including its timeliness and the standing of the complainant.

Opposite Party No. 1 requests the dismissal of the complaint against them, citing the lack of a valid legal basis and requesting costs against the complainant.

3). THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY

The complainant does not qualify as a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, because the vehicles were purchased for commercial purposes, specifically for a taxi service, and not for personal use or livelihood sustenance. They contend that this classification should be considered as a preliminary issue, suggesting the complaint may not be maintainable.

The complainant seeks compensation totalling INR 2,65,000 for various issues including service delays, replacement of a defective component, and legal costs. The Second Opposite Party denies the allegations in the complaint, particularly denying any deficiencies in servicing the vehicles. They state that they promptly serviced the two Jaguar XF cars owned by the complainant, addressing all headlamp-related issues competently, and deny that the vehicles were in the service center for an excessive amount of time. They stated that any issues with the vehicles, including the headlamps and air conditioning, were reported after the warranty periods had expired, and therefore any further repairs or replacements would be chargeable to the complainant.

The submission emphasizes that there is no evidence of any unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, or manufacturing defects within the warranty period. They assert that all complaints regarding the vehicles arose post-warranty, and thus the complainant should bear all costs for subsequent repairs or replacements. Consequently, the Second Opposite Party requests that the complaint be dismissed to avoid legal injury and hardship, asserting that the complaint lacks a valid cause of action.

4) . Evidence

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit; however, he filed photocopies of four documents.

1. True copy of the tax invoice dated 31.07.2015 issued by the second opposite party for the vehicle Jaguar XF (KL-42-K-6500).
2. True copy of the repayment details for the vehicle.
3. Email sent to the first respondent stating the grievances, dated 17/09/2020.
4. The reply dated 17/09/2020 sent by the first opposite party.

The first opposite party did not file a proof affidavit; however, they filed photocopies of three documents.

1. Copy of the Board Resolution dated 30th November 2018.
2. Service history of the vehicle.
3. Agreement between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 dated 30th November 2017.

5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

ii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iii)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and    answered as follows:

The complainant has been absent from proceedings since April 8, 2022, and has not presented any evidence on their behalf. The case was set for the presentation of the complainant's evidence starting April 12, 2023. Following this, the Commission issued a notice on April 15, 2023, urging the complainant to appear and present their evidence. Despite these notices, the complainant continued to be absent from subsequent hearings. The notice was served on April 12, 2023.

Despite reminders, including a phone call from the Commission's Registry to the complainant's counsel on August 11, 2023, there has been a consistent failure to attend hearings or submit any evidence. Due to the complainant's sporadic attendance and lack of submitted evidence, the Commission is left with no choice but to proceed with the judgment based on the evidence at hand. The complainant's repeated absences and failure to submit a proof affidavit or make further appearances indicate disinterest in pursuing the case.

In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “

The Commission proceeded to analyze these issues in detail:

In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.

We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.

ORDER

Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this is the 27^th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member        

Forwarded/By Order

 Assistant Registrar  

Forwarded/by Order

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 397/2020

Order Date: 27/04/2024