IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 23.01.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.28/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sharmal Khan 1. The Manager, Focuz Motors
Kallaravila Puthenveedu Edasserry Junction
Kayamkulam P.O. Kottukulangara, Alappuzha
Alappuzha
(By Adv. Sunitha. G.) 2. The General Manager
Focuz Motors, Focuz Towers
Edappally, Kochi
The General Manager
Tata Motors Ltd., 20th Floor
Tower 2-A, Our India Balls
Centre, 841, Senapathi Bapat Marg
Elphinstone Road, Mumbai
Represented by its General Manager
(By Adv. Menon & Menon – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Tata Magic IRIS Taxi from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,60,779/- on 19.10.2013. He purchased the vehicle for his livelihood. Immediately after the registration of the vehicle when it was taken out for drive, certain defects were noticed, particularly an unusual sound in the engine. Suddenly, the complainant examined the vehicle, it is seemed to be used one and it was run about 6000 KM and also the left side of the Platform and inside of the three doors was rusted. On the very same day the complainant left the vehicle with the first opposite party for removing the defect. On that day itself first opposite party return back the vehicle to the complainant and stated that the vehicle was in good condition and the noise was on account of the characteristics of the engine and also stated that the unusual sound was removed. The first opposite party further assured that they will remove the rust within one week. But the unusual sound was not removed by the first opposite party. Thereafter, on several occasions the complainant approached the first opposite party for removing the rust and unusual sound, but the first opposite party did not repair the said vehicle. The complainant was not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle and came to the conclusion that vehicle had inherent defects and cannot be repaired. The said vehicle was a used one. The aforesaid acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to mal trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The allegation that the vehicle sold was a used one is incorrect. After the purchase on 19.10.2013 the complainant had taken his vehicle to the authorized service centre of the third opposite party after it had covered 5186 KM with a complaint with the fuel pipe of the vehicle. After replacing the fuel pipe, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle. It is thereupon that the complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of these opposite parties on 26.12.2013 after the vehicle had covered 8129 kms., for an alleged complaint of noise from the engine which was found to be non-existing and thereafter on 9.1.2014 after the vehicle had covered 10038 kms., for carrying out the first periodic service. On both these occasions the complainant had taken delivery of his vehicle after being convinced of the work done and expressing satisfaction over the same. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of term Consumer as defined under the Act. The said vehicle was delivered after carrying out of pre-delivery instruction by the dealer. There has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and no deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The opposite party examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Point No.1:- According to the complainant the vehicle was purchased for his livelihood. No evidence adduced by the opposite parties in order to controvert the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint is maintainable.
6. Points 2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party on 19.10.2013. According to the complainant immediately after the registration of the vehicle while it was taken out for a drive certain defects were noticed and on examination he found that it was run about 6000 kms. But the opposite parties completely denied this allegation. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant no documentary evidence adduced. Ext.B1 is the job card dated 26.12.2013. It shows that the customer complaint about the sound problem. If complainant had a complaint that the vehicle sold was a used one he should have lodged a protest against the opposite parties about it. In the absence of any such written complaint it is difficult to believe that the vehicle sold was a used one. Exts. B1 and B2 are the job cards produced by the first opposite party which shows that there was a complaint of noise from the engine during the warranty period. Apart from that as per the commission report Ext.C1 the sound problem of the engine is still existing. He also reported that the platform joint portion rusted and it was only due to the lack of proper maintenance. Complainant did not place on record in report showing that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. Also the complainant did not lead any evidence showing that the vehicle has any manufacturing or inherent defect requiring its replacement. In the light of the above said discussion, it becomes clear that complainant failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is not disputed that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the workshop several times within the warranty period. It would be appropriate to grant some compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him for getting his vehicle repaired from time to time. In such circumstances compensation of Rs.5000/- should be awarded to the complainant. The only problem regarding the sound of the engine and rusting of the joint portion is still existing as per the commission report. Hence the opposite party is bound to check the vehicle and attend the problems without charging money and make it in a road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to attend the problems of the vehicle and repair it in a road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging money within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 31st of December, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sharmal Khan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Tax Invoice issued by the opposite parties
Ext.A2 - Copy of the RC particulars
Ext.A3 - Copy of the permit issued by the RTO
Ext.C1 - Expert Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Jayachandran M.S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Job card dated 26.12.2013 of the complainant’s vehicle
Ext.B2 - Job card dated 09.01.2014 of the complainant’s vehicle
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
