O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          The complainant purchased a Terrano XV car from 1^st opposite party vide invoice dtd. 31/10/2013 for Rs.12,37,973/-. It’s on road price was Rs.14,02,000/-. Opposite parties sold the vehicle stating that the same is of good quality. But at the time of delivery itself some knocking sound was appeared while starting the vehicle. Now the sound at the time of starting is increased. The gear tight also appeared and same raised before the 1^st opposite party which were not attended. Since the act of the opposite party amount deficiency in service, he caused a lawyer notice dtd. 28/10/14, which yielded no result. Hence this complaint.

          2) On receiving complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed separate versions. The contents of the version of  1^st opposite party is as follows :  The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased the vehicle after convincing its quality through test drive. The knocking sound is denied. After convincing the quality check, he took its delivery. He never raised such a complaint at that point of time and the allegation gear tight is also denied. There is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal.

          3) The contents of the version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows : Complaint is not maintainable. The Warranty conditions which were part of the Owner’s Manual and agreed by both the parties. 2^nd opposite party is only bound to repair/rectify the defective part, if any, of the vehicle. Allegation of knocking sound at the time of delivery itself is denied. There was no such knocking sound as alleged by the complainant. It is equally false to allege that the complainant felt that the said knocking sound was increasing. Tightness in shifting gear is also not correct. Periodical service at the Authorised Service Center was properly carried out and the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant on time and the work had been done to his satisfaction and he had taken delivery of the vehicle. All the grievances/complaints when brought to the notice of the Authorised Service Centre, were it rectified on cost free basis and it would be useful to note that these occurrences have never affected the overall performance of the vehicle and the vehicle suffers from no inherent defect to demand Rs.14,02,000/- along with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and cost and hence prayed for a dismissal.

          4) The points for consideration are

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

                       parties or not ?

                   b) Reliefs and costs ?

          5) When the case was posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint and the document produced is marked as Ext. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the Retail Invoice dtd. 31/10/13; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 28/10/14 and Ext. P3 is the A/D card. From the side of opposite parties also filed counter proof affidavit in tune with version but no documents produced. One Expert Commissioner was appointed and his report was marked as Ext. C1.

          6) Points :

          1) The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Terrano XV for Rs.14,02,000/-. The sale is admitted by the parties.

          2)The crux of the case of the complainant is that the vehicle met with two fold defect, that is, knocking sound at the starting of engine and gear tight. The opposite party denies the same. Hence Expert has been appointed and he filed Ext. C1 report. Ext. C1 report specifically details the inspection and its conclusion. It has been reported at point No.1 & 2 “somewhere near below the idling speed, excessive vibration and unusual sound were observed for a few second but no unusual sound or vibration was observed in the operating range of the engine speed including the idling and maximum speed. Also no such abnormal vibration or sound was observed during deriving the vehicle at different gears and speed and also observed sound was not due to any diesel knock”. It also states regarding possibility of vibration due to resonance. Commissioner also examined 3 other vehicle of the same model and two of them produced exactly similar kind of vibration and sound while starting but the third being relatively new shown by significantly low sound and vibration while starting. Point No.1.6 the Commissioner conclude that extremely short duration of sound while starting and the same is due to the vibration of dash board and other components as a consequence of high amplitude engine resonance vibration transmitted to the vehicle body. It may affect or it may happen due to ineffective bushy engine mounting that is not capable to damper out the vibration. It is further reported that the sound and vibration may not in any way affect the service life or performance of the vehicle other than discomfort causing to the passengers. It is further reported that there is gradual increase or decrease during different starting attempts or no unusual sound noticed after starting the vehicle. It is further reported that the sound and vibration may not in any way affect the service life or performance of the vehicle other than discomfort causing to the passengers. It is further reported that there is gradual increase or decrease during different starting attempts or no unusual sound noticed after starting the vehicle. It is also reported that the tightness gear in all the gears was more or less normal. Therefore the Expert Commission report categorically states that there is no mechanical defect to the vehicle or its engine, warranting a replacement or return of the cost of the vehicle. But it specifically state the discomfort ensued to the passenger that too for a short period of time. It is a clear case of the complainant that there exist some unusual vibration and sound which reported to be causing discomfort. It is not expected to have such disturbances spending around 14 lakhs for the vehicle. Therefore it has been proved that the disturbance cause annoyance and same leads to mental agony to the complainant and same need to be compensated by the opposite parties. Therefore we partly allow this complaint.

          In the result complaint is partly allowed and hereby direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order and failing in which would attract an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 28^th day of February 2022.

    Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-           

Sreeja S                                                                                   C.T. Sabu

Member                                                                                    President

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Retail Invoice dtd. 31/10/13

Ext. P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 28/10/14

Ext. P3 A/D card.

Ext. C1 Expert Commission Report

Id/-

Member