DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 05/03/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

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

C.C. NO. 162/2015

COMPLAINANT

1. Kunjamma Abraham, W/o. Abraham Varghese, Mukrakannil Malayil House, Madathumbhagom North P.O., Puramattom, Mallappally, Pin 689543.
2. Abraham Varghese, S/o. Varghese, Mukrakannil Malayil House, Madathumbhagom North P.O., Puramattom, Mallappally, Pin 689543.

(Rep. by Adv. Mathew Joseph & S. Renjith, Alliance lawyers, Door No. 40/9476, 2^nd Floor, Farah Mansion, Behind Metro mafatlal, MG Road, Ernakulam 35)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. K.P. Cars Private Limited, Authorized dealer for Audi, Vyttila Aroor Bypass Road, Ernakulam 682304. Rep. by its Managing Director

(Rep. by Adv. V. Krishna Menon, Surya J., Menon & Menon, Kumaran Arcade, 1^st Floor, Power house Road, Kochi 682018)

2. Audi Cars AG, Suit No. 205-206, 2^nd Floor, Pioner Towers, Marine Drive, Cochin 682031. Rep. by its Managing Director
3. The Pirelli Tyre (Suisse), SA Branch Office India, 1110 & 1111, 11^th Floor, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019. India. Rep. by its Manager.
4. Managing Director, Audi India, Andheri, Mumbai 400099.

(Rep. by Adv. Azeem Mohammed, Alappuzha)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

This complaint is filed by Smt. Kunjamma Abraham and Abraham Varghese alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. The complainant purchased an AUDI A6 2.0 TDI car from the 1^st opposite party on 14/10/2014 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party having 5 seats and its Engine Number CMG 020743 and chasis No. WAUZDE 4GXEY001551 in IBIS white colour by paying a price of Rs.49,51,000/-. The vehicle is insured for Rs.86,000/- and paid road tax Rs.7,42,650/-. Thus paid a total on road price of Rs.57,79,650/-. The car was registered by the 1^st opposite party in the name of 1^st complainant in Reg. No. KL28-B7000. The said car delivered on 14/10/2014. The car was defective from the day one of the delivery. The complainant noted the defect and complained about the defect to the dealer and the 1^st opposite party assured that the car is fully quality checked by the manufacturer and the dealer and assured that there will not be any problem. After 19 days of delivery on 03/11/2014 the car was returned to the dealer for the complaint of “tick tick” noise coming out from the front of the car. The noise was came out when the car was driven only 960 kms. The complaint rectified by correcting support bracket tourq   uo and recorded that the noise came due to the support bracket tourquo defect.

On 24/01/2015 the complainant and her husband was driving the car to Bangalore, the rear left tyre of the car was blasted on 5 a.m. near Hosur, Bangalore. It is reported to the nearest Audi Service Centre in Bangalore and they took the vehicle to the Audi Bangalore, Service Centre, No. 61-62 &65/A, Elavated Express Way Toll Gate NH07, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore 560100 and they replaced the defective tyre admitting the defect. The tyre was blasted either due to the manufacturing defect of the car or tyre. On 28/01/2015 the complainant and her family returned from Bangalore and they reached near Kumily around 4.30 am, the front tyre were also blasted and the front tyre bulged. The car was taken to the Audi service centre, in Kochi again by mobile crane service. The car was reached at Kochi service centre around 9.30 a.m. The 1^st opposite party replaced the two tyres and charged for one tyre saying the reason that it is happened due to external impact due to accidental damage in the form of a cut affecting the casing. The tyres were burst due to the defect of suspension of the vehicle or manufacturing defect of the tyres. Tree tyres of the car was burst and bulged within three months of purchase and when the car did 7572 km only.

A premium customer who bought a premium car must satisfy the safety and driving pleasure to the customer’s satisfaction. But here in by driving this case the complainant and family suffered a lot. There is a huge financial loss caused to the complainant in different stages of breakdowns by hiring taxi car of comparable luxury. Hence the complainant approached this Commission to get an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,83,663/- along with other reliefs.

Upon notice the 1^st and 4^th opposite parties entered into appearance and filed their version.

As per the version of 1^st opposite party the complainant has no case there has been any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and has unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings. The complaint is therefore liable to dismissed for misjoinder of unnecessary party. The complainant had booked for subsequently taken delivery of an AUDI 6A after personally inspecting the vehicle and being satisfied with the same. On 28/01/2018 the vehicle of the complainant was brought to the workshop of 1^st opposite party with a complaint that two tyres had burst while driving. In terms with the conditions of warranty for the vehicle, the service personnel in the workshop of 1^st opposite party had forwarded the tyres to the authorised service centre of the manufacturer of the tyre for their examination and doing the needful. The said service centre had after examination of the tyres rejected claim for replacement stating that there was no manufacturing defects whatsoever with the tyres and that the damage to the tyres was caused on account of accidental damage in the form of a cut affecting the casing. It is submitted that 1^st opposite party has no control whatsoever over the decision of the manufacturer of the tyre. As the claim for the replacement of the tyres had been rejected by the manufacturer of the tyre, the 1^st opposite party had as gesture of goodwill offered to replace one of the tyres free of cost. The complainant having been apprised of the above facts had agreed to the same and accordingly had replaced one of the tyres free of cost. The complainant had thereupon taken delivery of the vehicle on 31/01/2015 after being convinced of the facts as stated hereinabove and expressing satisfaction over the work done.

The 4^th opposite party contented in their version that the complaint discloses no cause of action against the 4^th opposite party as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 4^th opposite party and the complaint is as such liable to be dismissed. The 4^th opposite party situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission and no complaint can be filed against the 4^th opposite party without obtaining leave of this Commission. The complaint is a sheet abuse of process of law and has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to unjustly enrich herself at the cost of the opposite parties. It is submitted that the complaint is patently frivolous and vexatious and the same deserves to be dismissed as per Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act with imposition of heavy costs to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has made a baseless allegations regarding having defects in the car without substantiating the same with any expert report. The opposite parties further alleged that the allegations and demands of the complainant only suggest that the complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

The complainant had produced 8 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A8. There is no evidence from the side of opposite parties.

From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by complainant the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the complaint and from the evidence produced by the complainant it can be learn that the complainant was travelling to Bangalore on 24/01/2015, while then the rear left tyre of the car was blasted on 5 am near Hosur, Bangalore. The complainant reported to the nearest Audi Service Centre in Bangalore and on 28/01/2015 the complainant and family returned from Bangalore when they reached near Kumily the front left side tyre also bulged and blasted and the 1^st opposite party had replaced one of the tyres free of cost to the complainant as a goodwill gesture and as per the report of the Expert Commissioner appointed by the Commission and it can be seen that the vehicle of the complainant:

“I have inspected one of the bulged tyres of the vehicle which is kept along with vehicle. Following are the observations:

1. This is a 2014 model Audi A6 car, made by Audi India and it was sold to the complainant by the dealer K.P. Cars Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam.
2. The tyres of the car was manufactured by Pirelli Company which is an imported tyres.
3. The year of manufacturing of the tyres was 2013, it’s an old tyre fitted by the company in a 2014 model vehicle.
4. The tyres used for the vehicles in the India Road Condition should be approved by the ARAI (Auto Mobile Research Association of India). This Pirelli Company tyres was not recommended by the ARAI in any cars in India.
5. This model tyres are not recommended to use in Indian roads conditions and weather conditions.
6. The inspected Pirelli Company tyres was seems to be fully threaded and run by less Kilo meters.
7. The complaint (bulging in tyres) noticed in the tyres was due to the manufacturing defect.”

From which it can be seen that the complainant has proved Point No. 1 in favour of him. Since the Point No. (1) is proved in favour of the complainant Point No. (2) and (3) are also decided accordingly. Hence the following orders are issued.

1. The opposite parties shall replace the defective tyre of the car with brand new one
2. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally. The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20^th day of June, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of RC Book

Exbt. A2:    Copy of tax invoice

Exbt. A3:    Copy of tourist taxi receipt

Exbt. A4:    Copy of vehicle condition report form

Exbt. A5:    Photograph of the tyre

Exbt. A6:    Copy of retail invoice

Exbt. A7:    Copy of Insurance Certificate

Exbt. A8:    Copy of tax invoice       

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Deposition

PW1:           Abraham Varghese

Exbt. C1:    Commission Report

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 162/2015

Order Date: 20/06/2024