Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/282/2023

Mr.Praveen V Kokatnur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Wisedrive Technologies Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M K Lokesha

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
8TH FLOOR, B.W.S.S.B BUILDING, K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE-09
 
Complaint Case No. CC/282/2023
( Date of Filing : 11 Aug 2023 )
 
1. Mr.Praveen V Kokatnur
S/o Veeranna, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.1353, Sri M Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 7th block, Bengaluru-560091
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Wisedrive Technologies Pvt Ltd
Office at No.46, Novel Business Centre, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560066 Rep by its Authorized Representative Mr.Kalyandhar Reddy Present Address: M/s Wisedrive Technologies Pvt Ltd., No.L75, 35, 15th Cross Road, Sector 6, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHOBHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. K Anita Shivakumar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SUMA ANIL KUMAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Nov 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint filed on:11.08.2023

Disposed on:10.11.2023

                                                                              

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 

DATED 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

 

 

PRESENT:- 

              SMT.M.SHOBHA

                                               B.Sc., LL.B.

 

:

 

PRESIDENT

      SMT.K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR

M.S.W, LL.B., PGDCLP

:

MEMBER

                     

SMT.SUMA ANIL KUMAR

BA, LL.B., IWIL-IIMB

:

MEMBER

   

 

COMPLAINT No.282/2023

                                     

 

COMPLAINANT

1

Mr.Praveen V Kokatnur,

S/o. Veeranna,

Aged about 48 years,

R/at No.1353,

Sri M Vishweshwaraiah Layout,

  1.  

 

 

 

(M.T.Nanaiah Associates, Advocates)

  •  

OPPOSITE PARTY

1

M/s Wisedrive Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Office at No.46, Novel Business Centre, Hosur Road,

Bengaluru 560 066.

Rep. by its Authorized rep. Mr.Kalyandhar Reddy.

 

Present address:

M/s Wisedrive Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

No.L75, 35, 15th Cross Road,

Sector 6, HSR Layout,

Bengaluru 560 102.

 

 

 

(Sri.S.A.Sudhindra, Sadali Associates)

 

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

  1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-
  1. Direct the OP to provide warranty service as per broacher to car bearing No.KA19MD7995.
  2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering by way of expenses paid to the mechanic for repair car, inconvenience, traveling expenses, repair charges, mental agony, harassment, for delay with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of the complaint till the date of payment.
  3. To grant the costs.
  4. To grant such other relief/s.
  1. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant was impressed by the advertisement and slogans and assurances given by the representatives of the OP has purchased warranty policy from the OP for his ford Fiesta Car bearing No.KA 19 MD 7995, model FIESTA 1.5 Style BSIV, Color MD Silver, by paying a premium of Rs.8,500/- on 18.10.2022.  The OP has issued brochure and warranty activation details.

 

  1. It is further case of the complainant on 18.05.2023 he has noticed and experienced a sort of unusual sound produced from the engine and engine start up issues as it displayed malfunction and low oil pressure. In view of this the complainant unable to use his car and the car is with mechanic since from May 2023.  The complainant has approached the OP and asked them to provide service as per the warranty brochure. As per the instruction of the OP the complainant has sent an email with attachment of the photos of the car to the OP on 18.05.2023 and sent a copy to the customer care of the OP. the OP replied evasively on the same day through email stating that transmission warranty claim for vehicle NO.KA 19 MD 7995 has been rejected.  As per the Wise Drive Policy the engine and transmission warranty is valid for a period of 365 days or 10000 kms., whichever comes earlier. In this case, the complainant car driven more than 21712 kms.

 

  1. The OP has replied by email on 29.05.2023 stating that

“according to wise drive policy the warranty package is valid for either 365 days or 10000 kms., whichever comes earlier. Regretfully we have noticed that your vehicle has been driven 211 days and more than 21000 kms., exceeding the terms and conditions outlined in our policy. Consequently we regret to inform you that the warranty cannot be claimed for your vehicle.”

 

  1. It is further case of the complainant that the OP is taken this contention with sole intention to avoid warranty service and they are giving vague responses which clearly shows that OP have opted to evade responsibility and have resorted to escapism and it is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence he has got issued legal notice on 14.06.2023 but the OP neither bothers to reply nor provide service as per warranty. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.

 

  1. In response to the notice, OP has not appeared before this Commission, hence OP placed exparte.

 

  1. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 09 documents.    

 

  1. Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant only.   Perused the documents.

 

  1. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-
  1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
  3. What order?

 

  1. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

 

 

 

REASONS

  1. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents.

 

  1. Inspite of service of the notice OP remained absent and placed exparte. Hence the evidence of the complainant and the documents remained unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence and documents of the complainant.
  2. The complainant was impressed by the advertisements and slogans given by the OP has purchased a warranty policy from the OP to his Fort Fiesta bearing No.KA 19 MD 7995 model Fiesta, silver colour by paying the premium of Rs.8,500/- on 18.10.2022. He has also produced the copy of the policy as Ex.P1.  The complainant has experienced a sort of unusual sound from engine in his car and also engine start up issues and it has displayed malfunction and low oil pressure on 18.05.2023. In view of this the complainant was unable to use his car and left his car with mechanic from May 2023.  After that he approached the OP and requested to provide service as per the warranty brochure and as per their information he has sent a mail stating his problems in the car. After that he has received reply from the OP “Transmission warranty claim for vehicle KA19MD7995 has been REJECTED.”  As per wisedrive policy, the engine and transmission warranty is valid for a period of 365 days or 10000 Kms (whichever comes earlier) and in this case complainant car driven more than 21712 kms.”  After that the complainant has informed the OP that the engine and transmission warranty is valid for a period of 365 days. After that the OP has sent a mail on 23.05.2023 stating that “we will arrange for a technician on 24.05.2023 at your door step before the mechanic and the technician will call you.”  After that the complainant had waited constantly to get the vehicle repaired from the OP executives, technicians etc., but the OP is evading the responsibility. Again the OP has replied on 25.09.2023 that “according to the policy the warranty package is valid for either 365 days or 10000 kms., whichever comes earlier. Regretfully we have noticed that your vehicle has been driven for 211 days and more than 21000 kms., exceeding the terms and conditions outlined in the policy. Hence the warranty cannot be claimed for your vehicle”.

 

  1. The main grievance of the complainant that as per the warranty booklet the Ex.P1 the OP have specifically mentioned that warranty package is valid for 365 days. They have not mentioned anywhere that the warranty package is valid for either 365 days or 10000 kms., whichever comes earlier.  The OP is stating that reason with the sole intention to avoid the warranty service. After that the complainant has issued legal notice and inspite of service the OP has neither bother to reply nor provide any service as per warranty.  

 

  1. This complainant being an interior designer used to visit his client place by using the car for his daily routine travel and because of the non co-operation of the OP he was unable to attend the job in time and sustained huge loss in the business.  He has hired taxies or using alternative means of transport and is incurring lot of expenditure.  The mechanic has also given estimation for repair an amount of Rs.1,21,720/- and Rs.80,000/- incurred for his travel expenses for 150 days.

 

  1. In support of his contention the complainant has relied on the Ex.P1 is the copy of the brochure, Ex.P2 to 4 are the email, Ex.P5 is the legal notice along with postal receipt and unserved cover,  Ex.P6 is the quotation issued by one G.N.Motors for Rs.1,21,720/-. Ex.P7 is the copy of the invoice and Ex.P8 is the copy of the estimation bill.

 

  1. On this back ground we have gone through the Ex.P1 the brochure of the policy and it is clear from the page 3 of the Ex.P1 i.e., general service i.e., 01-service per year, it is clearly mentioned in this general service that

“This service includes Engine Oil change, Oil filter change, brakes cleaning/servicing and complete periodic maintenance service and car wash.  This service ensures you a smoth ride for 10,000 km from date of service.”

 

  1. Even in other services offered by the OP i.e., mentioned as service per year. It is clear from the brochure and also the email communications took place between the complainant and the OP as Ex.P2 to P4 that the warranty package is valid for either 365 days or 10000 kms., whichever comes earlier. Even though the policy Ex.P1 clearly discloses this fact that the policy is valid for one year or 10000 kms., but the complainant wants to avail the service of the OP after driving the car for 211 days by covering 21000 kms., the OP cannot provide the service since it exceeds the terms and conditions of the policy.  

 

  1. Under these circumstances, the OP has rejected the request made by the complainant for providing the service under the policy Ex.P1. It is the duty of the complainant/consumer to enquire thoroughly and go through all the terms and conditions of the policy before purchasing the policy. When he has purchased the policy without going through the terms and conditions of the policy it is on the fault of the complainant.  Under these circumstances he has failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the negative.

 

  1. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

  1. The complaint is Dismissed.  No costs.
  2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 10TH day of NOVEMBER 2023)

 

 

 

(SUMA ANIL KUMAR)

MEMBER

(K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR)

MEMBER

(M.SHOBHA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

 

1.

Ex.P.1

Copy of the broacher and warranty activation details

2.

Ex.P.2 to 4

Copy of the emails dated 18.05.2023, 19.05.2023, 23.05.2023, 24.05.2023 and 29.05.2023

3.

Ex.P.5

Copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, unserved covers, postal track consignment and email copy

4.

Ex.P.6

Copy of the quotation

5.

Ex.P.7

Copy of the invoice

6.

Ex.P.8

Copy of the estimate bill

7.

Ex.P.9

Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence act

 

 

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

(SUMA ANIL KUMAR)

MEMBER

(K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR)

MEMBER

(M.SHOBHA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. M. SHOBHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. K Anita Shivakumar]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SUMA ANIL KUMAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Post your Complaint / Review.