Cc DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 12th day of January, 2023
C.C. 179/2014
Complainant
Devassya,
S/o Joseph,
Valliyath House, Thiruvambady P.O,
Kozhikode – 673 603.
(By Adv. Sri. V. Razal Rahiman)
Opposite Parties
- Proprietor,
Marina Motors (India) Pvt Ltd.,
Bypass road, Pantheerankavu,
Kozhikode – 673019.
- Tata Motors Ltd.,
Southern Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Vasudeva Building, T.D. Road, Ernakulam – 682001.
- Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit,
One India Bulls Centre,
Tower 2A & B, 20th Floor, 841,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Jupitar Mills Compound,
Elphin Stone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013.
(Op3 Impleaded as per order in IA 270/2016)
Op1 - by Adv. Sri.Z. P. Zachariah.
OP2 - by Adv. Sri. P.G. Anoop Narayanan.
Op3 - Ex –parte.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is a driver by profession. He purchased a TATA SUMO GRANT MK-II vehicle from the showroom of the first opposite party. The vehicle was manufactured by M/s Tata Motors Pvt Ltd(OP2). The vehicle was delivered on 16/05/2011. On 02/07/2011 he received a telephone call from the Customer Care Centre of Tata Motors, Pune to remit the premium for extended warranty. Accordingly, he approached the first opposite party on 05/07/2011 in order to remit the premium for the extended warranty. But the first opposite party refused to accept the premium stating that the vehicle was sold to the complainant on 31/03/2011 and that the period for remitting the premium for extended warranty had elapsed. The allegation that the vehicle was delivered on 31/03/2011 is not correct. The complainant has sustained huge monetary loss due to the denial of extended warranty.
3. There was a wordy altercation between the complainant and the first opposite party in this regard and after that whenever the vehicle was brought to the service centre of the first opposite party, they unnecessarily delayed the service. After one month of the delivery of the vehicle, it began to give problems and had to be reported to the service centre often. Since the first opposite party failed to carry out proper service/repairs to the vehicle, he was constrained to approach another service centre for rectifying the complaints. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs. 70,500/- collected from him for service/repairs of the vehicle during the extended warranty period and for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the delay in service/repairs along with compensation for mental agony and hardship to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. The first and second opposite parties filed separate written versions wherein they have denied all the allegations made against them in the complaint. The third opposite party was set ex-parte.
5. The first opposite party has admitted the purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant. The complainant requested the first opposite party to provide him the benefits offered by the manufacturer for purchasing the vehicle. As the benefits were available only for the vehicles purchased on or before 31/03/2011, as requested by him, the first opposite party generated the tax invoice of the vehicle sold to the complainant on 31/03/2011. Eventhough the complainant had assured to remit the payments as per the invoice immediately, he made the remittance only on 10/05/2011. Altogether the complainant had received benefits amounting to Rs. 1,65,000/- while purchasing the vehicle. It is true that the vehicle was delivered to him on 16/05/2011 only. Since the complainant was using the vehicle as a taxi, the warranty available was for 24 months or 50,000 Kms whichever is attained earlier. Eventhough the first opposite party had informed the complainant the benefits of availing the extended warranty by paying an extra premium, the complainant was not ready to avail the same. By the time he wanted to avail the extended warranty, the time was over. The complainant had not approached them for remitting the premium amount on 05/07/2011.
6. The allegation that the first opposite party used to retain the vehicle unnecessarily at the service centre is false and hence denied. The service history of the vehicle shows that it was not having any major complaints. The service was done as per the warranty conditions during the subsistence of warranty. Only consumables and items not covered under the warranty conditions were charged. It was only after the completion of the warranty that charges were collected. There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party either in the matter of providing extended warranty or in carrying out the service/repairs. None of the reliefs sought for is allowable. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. The second opposite party has contended that there was no problem with the car at the time of delivery. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term ‘Consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegation that the first opposite party refused to receive the extended warranty premium from the complainant is false and hence denied. The complainant had compelled the first opposite party to issue invoice on the date of 30/03/2011 for availing the benefits declared by the second opposite party. Though he was informed about the benefits of availing extended warranty by paying extra premium at the time of sale of the vehicle, the complainant did not pay the premium for reasons best known to him. The second opposite party does not provide any extended warranty benefits to the vehicle registered as taxi or which is used as taxi. The allegation that he had received a call from the customer care requesting to pay the premium amount for availing the extended warranty benefits is false and hence denied. The complainant never approached the opposite parties for the benefits of extended warranty. The allegation that the service was delayed is false. No major complaints were reported to the vehicle and all the service/repairs were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(2). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(3). Reliefs and costs.
9. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A19 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
10. Heard. The first opposite party filed brief argument notes.
11. Point No 1 : The second opposite party has taken a contention in the written version that the complainant herein is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the vehicle was purchased by him for being used as a taxi vehicle. In this context, it may be noted that it is pleaded in the complaint and is in evidence that the complainant is a driver by profession and he bought the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. So the complainant comes within the meaning of the term ‘Consumer’ as defined under section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That being so, the present complaint filed by him under section 12 of the Act is perfectly maintainable.
12. Point No. 2: The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that the first opposite party refused to accept the premium for the extended warranty and thereby he had to bear the expenses for the service/repairs and there was unnecessary delay caused by the first opposite party in the matter of service/repairs. According to the complainant, he has sustained monetary loss besides mental agony and hardship due to the deficient service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Exts A1 to A19 documents were marked through PW1. PW2 is the Service Manager of Focuz Automobile Services Ltd. He has deposed that the vehicle in question was repaired in their service centre, for which, Ext A5 series tax invoice was issued.
14. The first and second opposite parties have admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. Their case is that the complainant had not availed the extended warranty by remitting the premium within the prescribed time. According to them, all the repairs/services were done during the warranty period as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and only the charges for consumables and items not covered by the warranty were levied. After the warranty period, repair charges were collected and repairs were done promptly as and when reported. The General Manager (Services) of the first opposite party was examined as RW1, who has filed affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version and 3 documents were produced and marked as Exts B1 to B3.
15. The purchase of Tata Sumo Grant MK - II vehicle by the complainant is not disputed. The first opposite party is the authorised dealer and the second opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. It is being used as a taxi vehicle by the complainant. The warranty applicable to the vehicle is 24 months or 50,000kms whichever occurs earlier. The benefit of extended warranty can be availed for 2 years, if the required premium was remitted within 2 months of the sale of the vehicle. There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.
16. The grievance of the complainant is that though he had approached the first opposite party on 05/07/2011 in order to remit the premium for extended warranty, the first opposite party refused to accept the same stating that the time for remitting the premium was over. But this is stoutly denied by the contesting opposite parties. There is absolutely no evidence that the complainant had approached the first opposite party for remitting the premium for the extended warranty. The case of the complainant is that on 02/07/2011, he had received a call from the Customer Care Centre of the second opposite party from Pune requesting him to remit the premium for the extended warranty and it was on the basis of that call that he approached the first opposite party on 05/07/2011 to remit the premium. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had received such a call from the Customer Care Centre on 02/07/2011. Equally, there is absolutely no evidence to show that he had approached the first opposite party on 05/07/2011 to remit the premium for availing the extended warranty. It has come out in evidence that the second opposite party is not providing extended warranty to the vehicles used as taxis. The specific case of the first opposite party is that for the extended warranty to the taxi vehicles the administrators are
Global Administration Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon, Hariyana. So there is no chance for the customer care of the manufacturer to contact the complainant about the availing of the extended warranty to his taxi vehicle. If there was refusal on the part of the first opposite party to accept the premium, the complainant could have approached the second opposite party or lodged complaint against the first opposite party with the second opposite party manufacturer. PW1 has stated in the cross examination that he had preferred a written complaint to the manufacturer. But no such complaint is forthcoming. If he had preferred any such complaint, he could have very well produced documents evidencing the same. In the absence of satisfactory evidence, it cannot be held that the first opposite party had refused to accept the premium and that the first opposite party is responsible for denying him the benefits of extended warranty.
17. Another grievance of the complainant is that there was a wordy altercation between himself and the first opposite party regarding refusal to issue extended warranty and thereafter the first opposite party deliberately retained his vehicle unnecessarily at the service centre for days together whenever the vehicle was brought there for services/repairs. Regarding this aspect also, there is lack of evidence. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the delivery of the vehicle after repairs was deliberately delayed by the first opposite party.
18. As already stated, the warranty was for 24 months from the date of sale. The services/repairs to the vehicle were done as per the warranty conditions during the subsistence of the warranty. It is in evidence that only consumables and other items not covered under the warranty were charged by the first opposite party. This fact is admitted by PW1 also. In the cross examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that the services/repairs were carried out as per the warranty conditions during the subsistence of the warranty and no payments contrary to the warranty conditions were collected from him. So there is no scope for any grievance in this regard.
19. It is in evidence that it was only after the completion of the warranty that the first opposite party had charged for the repairs of the vehicle, which is legal. There is absolutely no evidence to hold that the first opposite party has collected any extra amount.
20. While in the box, PW1 has a case that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. But it is pertinent to note that the complainant has no specific allegation in this regard in the complaint. Apart from a vague allegation made in the complaint that after one month of the delivery, he had to take the vehicle to the service centre often for repairs, the complainant has no specific allegation as to any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has failed to place on record any technical /expert report to support his allegation that the vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect. Not even a single document has been placed on record in support of the allegation that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Moreover, it is in evidence that the vehicle which is being used as a taxi had completed 53,610kms of run as on 26/09/2013. This would indicate that the complainant was in extensive use of the vehicle from the date of purchase. This is also indicative of the fact that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle or else he would not have been able to drive it all these years and that too 53,610kms as on 26/09/2013. So the prayer made by PW1 at the time of evidence for replacement of the vehicle or return of the purchase price is not allowable.
21. To sum up, we hold that no deficiency of service is established or proved against the opposite parties either in the matter of providing warranty or in carrying out the services/repairs of the vehicle of the complainant. As there is no proof of deficiency, the complaint must fail.
22. Point No.3: In view of the finding on the above points, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 12th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 26/03/2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the Proforma invoice dated 23/04/2011.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the receipt dated 02/05/2011 Marina motors.
Ext. A3 – Owner’s manual and service book.
Ext. A4 series – Tax invoice .
Ext. A5 series - Tax invoice.
Ext. A6 series – Service bills.
Ext. A7 series – Receipts issued by Skyhigh Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Ext. A8 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 23/11/2013.
Ext. A9 – Copy of the notice dated 20/12/2013.
Ext. A10 – Postal acknowledgment card.
Ext. A11 – Postal receipt dated 20/12/2013.
Ext A12 – Un-served postal article with acknowledgement card.
Ext. A13 – Postal receipt dated 26/11/2013.
Ext. A14 – Reply notice dated 06/08/2013.
Ext. A15 – Reply notice dated 27/12/2013.
Ext. A16 series – Envelopes.
Ext. A17 – Copy of the Service history of the vehicle.
Ext. A18 – Letter dated 11/09/2014.
Ext. A19 – Tax invoice issued by Skyhigh Motors Pvt Ltd.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 - Owner’s Manual.
Ext. B2 – Copy of the service history of the vehicle.
Ext. B3 – Copy of the ledger extract.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Devassya (Complainant).
PW2 – Sujith Varma.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Ashok Kumar.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
