DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2023.
Filed on: 01/02/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO.63/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
M.D. Sabu, Madappillil House, Aroor P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha- 688534.
(Rep. by Adv. Linta Varghese,, Amrin Fathima)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Mijo Moto , George Maijo Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.2/316, onNH-47, Kannadikkad, Near Sarovaram, Maradu, Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. Ajith George, @ 36, Revenue Tower, Ernakulam)
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 has been filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant purchased a Swift car with registration number KL-39K-3030 from Popular Maruti, Mamangalam, in August 2016. The vehicle had a 2-year warranty at the time of purchase, and the complainant additionally bought an extended warranty for 2 years. The car also had full cover insurance every year. The complainant always serviced the vehicle at authorized service centers, and it had no complaints until a normal service was done on 15/11/2018.
After the service, the complainant noticed a peculiar noise while driving and had the vehicle inspected by the service center. They were informed that there was a serious engine issue and were asked to pay Rs. 30,000 for repairs. However, all repairs were supposed to be covered under warranty and insurance. The complainant was dissatisfied with the service center's explanation and left the vehicle with them for about one and a half months. Upon receiving the vehicle back, the problem persisted, and the car eventually became undriveable.
The complainant then took the vehicle to Indus Motor Company Ltd., an authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer, who discovered that the issue was not engine-related but a pump problem, which they fixed under warranty. The complainant believes that the service center's negligence and lack of proper repairs resulted in numerous complaints and incurred significant expenses.
The complainant is seeking Rs. 80,000/- for repairs, Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation, and an additional Rs. 10,000/- for travel expenses and business losses due to the vehicle's condition.
2). Notice
The Commission issued notices to the opposite party, but they did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 6 documents that were marked Exhibit A-1 to A-6.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the invoice cum certificate of extended warranty Suzuki India Ltd. Bearing registration issued by Maruti invoice No. 12795603 in the name of the petitioner which is valid till 10/08/2020 or up to 80,000Kms Dated 31/08/2016
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the Policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vytilla issued by The New India branch, to Policy No. 76070731180300005016 for the period 16/08/2018 to 15/08/2019. Dated 31/07/2018.
Exhibit A-3: True copy of the tax invoice bearing No. 002/BR/18004335 dated issued by the opposite party in the name of the Opposite Party dated 16/11/2018.
Exhibit A-4: True copy of the Tax invoice bearing No. 005/BR/18001034 issued by the Opposite party in the name of the Opposite Party dated 28/01/2019.
Exhibit A-5: True copy of the satisfaction note of the Opposite Party dated 30/01/2019.
Exhibit A-6: True copy of the invoice issued by Indus motors dated 04.04.2019.
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced copy of the invoice cum certificate of extended warranty Suzuki India Ltd. Bearing registration issued by Maruti invoice No. 12795603 in the name of the petitioner. (Exhibits A-1). The document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the product to the opposite party. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased a Swift car with registration number KL-39K-3030 from Popular Maruti, Mamangalam. The car came with a 2-year warranty, and the complainant also opted for an extended warranty of 2 years. Additionally, the vehicle had full cover insurance every year. The complainant diligently serviced the car only at authorized service centers, and until the normal service on 15/11/2018, there were no issues.
However, after this service, the complainant noticed an unusual noise while driving and promptly contacted the service center. They were informed that there was a serious problem with the engine and were asked to pay Rs. 30,000 for repairs, despite the vehicle being under warranty and insurance coverage. Dissatisfied with the service center's explanation, the complainant left the car with them for about one and a half months.
Upon getting the vehicle back, the problem persisted, and the car eventually became undriveable. Frustrated with the service center's inability to resolve the issue, the complainant decided to take the car to Indus Motor Company Ltd., an authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer. To the complainant's surprise, the issue turned out not to be engine-related, but rather a pump problem, which was promptly fixed by Indus Motor Company under warranty.The complainant firmly believes that the negligence and lack of proper repairs by the initial service center led to numerous complaints and substantial financial expenses.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issues Nos. (II) to (IV) are in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party are liable to compensate the complainant.
The evidence presented, including documents Exhibits A-1 to A-6, proved that the complainant had purchased the vehicle, opted for extended warranty, and had full-cover insurance, making them a valid consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
The opposite party failed to file their version in response to the notices issued by the Commission, and thus, they were set ex-parte. Their conscious failure to respond amounted to an admission of the allegations made against them.
Considering the unchallenged evidence and the complainant's credible claims, the Commission found that there was a deficiency in service, negligence, and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. The initial service center's failure to properly diagnose and fix the car's problem caused mental agony, hardships, and financial losses to the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs 80,000/- for repairing charges to the complainant.
- Opposite Party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for financial losses, mental agony, and hardships caused by the negligence.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall be liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31st day of July, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia TN., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the invoice cum certificate of extended warranty Exhibit A-2: True copy of the Policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Exhibit A-3: True copy of the tax invoice bearing No. 002/BR/18004335 Exhibit A-4: True copy of the Tax invoice bearing No. 005/BR/18001034
Exhibit A-5: True copy of the satisfaction note of the Opposite Party
Exhibit A-6: True copy of the invoice issued by Indus motors
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 63/2019
Order Date: 31/07/2023
