IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 31st day of December, 2016
Filed on 05.02.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC.No.36/2015
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:-
Sri. Varghese Rajan. P. 1. R.F. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Paratharackal House Near Kerala Water Authority
Muhamma P.O., Alappuzha Thiruvambady P.O., Alappuzha
Represented by Power of Attorney (By Adv. S. Raj, Ernakulam)
Holder Rajan, Father of Varghese Rajan
-do- -do- 2. The Managing Director
(By Adv. John Jude Isaac) Tata Motors, Jeevan Thara Building
5. Sansadmag, New Delhi – 110001
(B y Adv. V. Krishna Menon)
O R D E R
SMT.JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
On 10.7.2009 the complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Grande-Ext vehicle from the first opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party. On 30.7.2014 complainant produced the vehicle to the first opposite party service centre for some check-up and first opposite party made believe to the complainant that they had done all the check-up requested by the complainant. The complainant also compel the first opposite party to check the timing belt of the vehicle on that day and first opposite party assured the complainant they conducted all the check-up requested by the complainant including timing belt check up was done and also issued bill to the complainant. On 18.8.2014 ie. immediately after the said check up while the complainant was driving the vehicle, the vehicle was suddenly stopped. Thereafter the vehicle was brought to Focus Automobiles Services Pvt. Ltd. and found that the vehicle was stopped due to the timing belt was broken and he spent Rs.40,220/- in the service centre. According to the complainant, the said defect was happened due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle and the warranty of the timing belt is continuing hence opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant due to their deficiency of service. The complainant directly approached the first opposite party for getting expenses incurred. Thereafter on 4.12.2014 the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties, but in vein, hence filed this complaint.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable . There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. The first opposite party promptly attended and redressed the complainant’s grievances whenever the complainant’s vehicle was brought to the first opposite party and the vehicle is nearly 6 years old. The claim is barred by limitation. No cause of action ever arose for the complainant to prefer the complaint against this opposite party. The vehicle was not properly serviced and periodical checkups were not done as per the owner’s manual. The allegation of the complainant that the warranty is now continuing is not correct. Warranty period of the vehicle was expired. It is true that the complainant brought his vehicle to the first opposite party service centre for General check-up. On the basis of his instruction, this opposite party performed the break check-up front and rear break disc check-up, Leaf spring bushes check-up and timing belt check-up. This opposite party checked the above mentioned parts and found that the under body sound was due to defects in the Idler Arm Play and the same was corrected by setting the Idler Arm play. It was also found that the break liner, front RH break disc and rear LH wheel cylinder were defective. For curing the defects all wheel break cleaning was done, RR break liner, LH wheel cylinder and FR RH break disc were renewed. At the time of inspection, timing belt was checked and found “OK” and good enough to run. The vehicle was served as per the job card and the vehicle was delivered on 1.8.2014. It is respectfully submitted that if the timing belt of the vehicle broke it was not due to any mechanical defect of the said timing belt. The timing belt did not have any mechanical defect at the time of last service by the first opposite party. The complainant approached the first opposite party allegedly seeking the amount incurred by him for the service of the vehicle. It is respectfully submitted that there has been absolutely no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party, hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party, hence the complaint is dismissed.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. This opposite party has unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings. It is pertinent to state here that the relationship between this opposite party and the first opposite party is of principal to principal and this opposite party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transactions. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without have produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the car in question. This opposite party is instructed that the complainant had booked and subsequently taken delivery of a Tata Sumo Car manufactured by this opposite party after personally inspecting the vehicle and being satisfied with the same. The statement of the complainant that the periodical checkups and service were being attended to by the first opposite party is not admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that the warranty prescribed by this opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Operator’s Manual. It is submitted that as there has been no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party, it is in no way liable or responsible to compensate the complainant. Further the complainant is not entitled either in law or on facts to seek any amount towards compensation. He has made the said claim without any bonafides and with the intention of making unmerited gain. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
4. The power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. First opposite party was examined as RW1 and 2nd opposite party was examined as RW2.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant and the contentions of the opposite parties, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite
parties?
6. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Tata Sumo Grande-Ex vehicle in the year 2009 manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was very particular in doing the periodical services and maintenance as prescribed by the manufacturer while so on 30.7.2014 the vehicle was taken to the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party for some checkup including timing belt checkup, the opposite party after inspection, intimated that the timing belt is OK. But on 18.8.2014 ie. immediately after the said checkups while driving the vehicle was stopped all of a sudden and the vehicle was towed to the nearest service centre and they informed the complainant, the vehicle was stopped because the timing belt was broke and the complainant had to spent Rs.40,220/- for repair. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint, alleging deficiency in service, seeking refund/replacement of the vehicle together with compensation and costs.
7. The power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant, Ext.A2 is the bill dated 10.7.2009, Ext.A3 is the job sheet dated 12.12.2014, Ext.A4 is the bill dated 30.7.2014, Ext.A5 is the bill issued by the Focus Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Ext.A6 is the bill dated 12.12.2014, Ext.A7 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A8 series are the acknowledgement cards.
8. The highlighting point contended by the complainant for alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party is that first opposite party after the timing belt checkup it was found OK. But timing belt was broken immediately after the said inspection. In Ext.A4 it can be seen that the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for certain checkups including timing belt on 30.7.2014. The first opposite party inspected the timing belt and found OK and the vehicle was delivered on 1.8.2014. But after 16 days the vehicle suddenly stopped while driving and the vehicle was taken to the nearest service centre and there it was found that the vehicle was stopped because of the breakage of timing belt. According to the complainant he entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party on 30.7.2014 for timing belt checkup to prevent the belt from breaking. The first opposite party checked the condition of the belt and found it was OK. Ext.A4 evidenced the same. The complainant requested for timing belt checkup to know that whether the timing belt needed to be replaced or not. Every owner is not expected to be an expert to realize that the timing belt needs replacement. So he hired the service from the first opposite party in order to check the timing belt and entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party to inspect the timing belt in order to see whether it shows signs of wear and thereby prevent the belt from breaking. But it was not properly checked by the technicians of the first opposite party. According to the complainant the said timing belt was broken immediately after 16 days from the said inspection. Ext.A5 evidenced that the timing belt was broken and the vehicle was towed to the Focus Automobiles which is also an authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party and the complainant has incurred a total expense of Rs.40,220/- for repairing the vehicle. It is also evidenced from Ext.A5 (as item No.12) that the actual cost of timing belt is only Rs.10,311/-. So it is clear that the cost of having a new timing belt fitted is much lower than the cost of repairing the vehicle if the belt breaks unexpectedly. On scanning the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the technicians of the first opposite party were not properly checked whether the timing belt needs changing or not. Therefore the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service and liable to compensate the complainant for the extra expenses incurred for the mental agony sustained and inconveniences caused to the complainant.
9. The highlighting point contended by the complainant in alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party is that the timing belt has broken prior to the time schedule prescribed for replacement of the timing belt. According to the complainant, the timing belt is under warranty and the breakage of timing belt during the warranty period is due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle. But no documents were produced to substantiate this allegation. Hence we cannot held 2nd opposite party is liable for any deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - P.V. Rajan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Power of attorney executed by the complainant
Ext.A2 - Bill dated 10.7.2009
Ext.A3 - Job sheet dated 12.12.2014
Ext.A4 - Bill dated 30.7.2014
Ext.A5 - Bill issued by the Focus Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.A6 - Bill dated 12.12.2014
Ext.A7 - Copy of lawyer notice
Ext.A8 series - Acknowledgement cards.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Raji Raj (Witness)
RW2 - Jibin. K. Sasidharan (Witness)
//True copy//
By order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/opposite parties/Stock file
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
