BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 3rd day of May 2017
Filed on : 28-04-2014
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.323/2014
Between
1. Dominic Jacob, : Complainants
Cheruparambil house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, court road,
Vazhakulam P.O., Avoly, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha-686 670.
And
1. Manager, : Opposite parties
M/s. Maruti Zuzuki India Ltd., (1st O.P. By Adv. V. Santharam,
Regional Office, Tutus Tower, “Srukrithum 40/8709, 1st floor,
Padivattom, Palarivattom, Sreenivasa Mallan road, Ernakulam,
Kochi-25. Kochi)
2. Manager,
M/s. Indus Motors Company
Ltd., One way Junction,
Market P.O.,
Muvattupuzha-686 673.
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant purchased a Maruti Dzire car on 29-08-2011 with two years warranty provided by the 1st opposite party, through the 2nd opposite party. Soon after delivery of the car the complainant noticed that rear accident fault, fuel lid fault and truck lid fault . Those faults were replaced under warranty by the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the steering columns was replaced twice under warranty. The clutch assembly was also replaced under warranty. After one year of the purchase the gear box also became faulty and that was also rectified under warranty. On 31-03-2014 the car had accidentally hit on a wall. Consequently, the radiator assembly, cooler compressor catelic converter, drive shaft, suspension and suspension arms and the chassis extension were badly damaged. However, the air bags failed to open leading to heavy sprain on the neck of the driver of the car. The ABS of the car was also not working at the time of accident. According to the complainant the non-functioning of the ABS and Air bags were due to the manufacturing defects of the car. The opposite party despite intimation of the accident, did not ascertain the allegation of the complainant. the reluctance on the part of the complainant to attend the complaint with respect to the major safety problem detected in the car supplied by the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore pray for the refund of the purchase amount with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with the costs of the proceedings.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and contested the claim by filing a version.
4. Version of the opposite party
5. The opposite party had delivered a defect free car to the complainant after all quality test from the manufacturer company. All the running repairs during the warranty period were done free of costs and the complainant had no complaints with regard to the service for two and half years until the accident occurred. There was no failure of ABS and Air bags. The non deployment of air bag was only because of the fact that the impact was not much sufficient for its functioning. The nature of accident, damages other parameters at the time of accident , usage of seat belt at the time of the impact of polition etc. are some of the criteria for the functioning of the airbags. The airbag hitted in the car did not seen any serious impact to cause any injury to the driver. The complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to 3 and Exbts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party examined DW1 and Exbts. B1 to B6 were marked.
7. The following issues were considered for discussion.
i. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
ii. Whether the complainant has proved that the opposite party had committed any deficiency in service?
iii. Reliefs and costs.
8. Issue No. i. The complainant had purchased the car on 29-08-2011 . The accident occurred on 31-03-2014. The complainant did not produce any document to show that that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party during the period of two years warranty. All the documents produced by the complainant were relating to accident which occurred in March 2014, much after the expiry of the warranty period. the allegation of manufacturing defects ought to have been raised by the complainant within a reasonable period from the date of purchase. In the absence of production of any documents by the complainant to prove any deficiency in service within a period of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle, we find that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the consumer Protection Act 1986.
9. Issue No. ii. The grievance of the complainant alleging manufacturing defects of the car is on the basis of the fact that the Air bag was not deployed despite serious impact on the front side of the car. There is no evidence to show that the the driver of car was not wearing seat belt of the car. The survey report prepared by Shri. P.J. James, Insurance Surveyor, can not be accepted as such for the simple reason that he can not be turned as an expert in Automobile Mechanism as he is not a qualified Automobile engineer as seen from his qualification shown in the Survey Report. The issue is therefore found against the complainant .
10. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of May 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/ByOrder,
Senior Superintendent.
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of Tax/Vehicle Invoice
dt. 29-08-2011
A2 : Copy of certificate dt. 03-04-2014
A3 : Copy of brochure
A4 : Copy of email dt. 09-04-2014
A5 : Copy of statement
A6 : Survey report
Opposite party's Exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Dealership agreement
B2 : Warranty policy
B3 : Copy of vehicle history
B4 : Copy of demanded repairs
B5 : Copy of owners manual description
Depositions:
PW1 : Dominic Jacob
PW2 : Sandeep Kartha
PW3 : P.J. James
DW1 : Geetha Krishnan
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
