By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased Santro, iiMT Sports car from the opposite parties under the belief of good quality including high pulling capacity. The complainant paid in cash Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty thousand only) and balance amount arranged by way of loan. On the very first day of travel, the complainant experienced low pulling capacity to the vehicle consequently a complaint is forwarded to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are assured of good pulling after first service of the vehicle. It is stated by the complainant that during the time of uphill driving, the vehicle is turning off and as a result the passengers have to get out of the vehicle in order to move the vehicle further. Even after the first service of the vehicle, the defect was not rectified by the opposite parties. When the complainant left for abroad his brother named Muhammed Rifayeen used the vehicle as it bought for his use also. The brother of the complainant is the power of attorney holder of the complainant and he visited the opposite party for 5 times in order to rectify the defect but the vehicle was kept in the custody of opposite parties for a long time under the manoeuvre of experts repair work. But the opposite parties did not rectify the defect of the vehicle even after repeated request of the complainant. The complainant had informed his mental agony and hardship to the opposite parties. But no action was taken by the opposite parties. On the date 01/03/2019, the complainant had handed over the vehicle to the first opposite party after convincing that the subject vehicle cannot be used any more. The use of defective vehicle brought defame to the family of the complainant and also caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The complainant alleged financial loss due to substitution of vehicle in the place of subject vehicle for his personal use. It is stated that the complainant purchased the subject vehicle from the opposite parties after availing a loan of Rs. 4,58,746/-(Rupees Four lakh fifty eight thousand seven hundred and fourty six only) from HDFC Bank, Calicut branch and he was paying EMI of Rs. 21,488/- per month from 05/01/2019 onwards. The complainant approached the opposite parties for getting rectified the vehicle but no appropriate action was taken by them. The complainant purchased the subject vehicle believing the advertise of the product as well as the information given by the opposite party with regard to the condition including pulling capacity of the vehicle. The complainant averred that the vehicle was defectively manufactured by the opposite parties. It is further stated that many vehicles manufactured by the opposite parties in the same series of Hyundai Santro, iiMT Sports suffered manufacturing defect as it was known from other customers. According to the complainant, the opposite parties cheated him by making false representation with regard to quality of the vehicle. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding to refund the amount incurred for the purchase of the subject vehicle with interest. The opposite parties received the notice on 24/04/2019, but no action was taken on the legal notice. The complainant stated that he was paying the EMI of vehicle loan without any default and thereby causing financial loss to him. According to the complainant, he had remitted a total of Rs. 1,28,928/- (Rupees One lakh twenty eight thousand nine hundred and twenty eight only) towards the loan due and the opposite parties are liable to refund the same with 18% interest. Moreover the opposite parties are also liable to pay the remaining instalments of the loan. The complainant also claimed compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship, otherwise there will irreparable loss to the complainant. It is stated that the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant. So the complainant approached the Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- as the amount given at the time of purchase of the car, Rs. 33,400/- as the amount spent for purchasing accessories of the car and Rs. 1,28,928/- as the loan instalments paid to the bank. The complainant claimed 18% interest to the above stated total of Rs. 3,72,328/- (Rupees Three lakh seventy two thousand three hundred and twenty eight only). The complainant prayed for another direction to the opposite party to make payment of the balance of EMI of the car loan with 18% interest. The complainant claimed Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) from the opposite party as compensation for the sufferings of the mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also claimed cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The
opposite parties entered appearances and filed versions separately. The complainant
appointed power of attorney holder to conduct the case and same was allowed by the Commission.
3. In the version, the first opposite party questioned the maintainability of the complaint and alleged that the complainant suppressed material facts before the Commission. The sale of the car is admitted by opposite party and stated that they are holding dealership and conducting services to the vehicle manufactured by the second opposite party. There is no manufacturing defect to vehicle purchased by the complainant. It is averred in the version that the complainant serviced the vehicle on 18/12/2018 after driving the vehicle for 1192 Kms. Later, on 01/03/2019 the complainant again brought the vehicle for service after driving of 2031Kms. According to the opposite party, the complainant made a complaint of low pulling of the vehicle. But after the servicing of the vehicle the complainant did not approach the opposite party to take back the vehicle. Even though the opposite party contacted the complainant, he did not taken back the vehicle from opposite party due to external interference. After filing of the present complaint before the Commission, the complainant approached the opposite party and taken back the vehicle. It is stated that the complainant had signed the satisfaction letter and given to the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the complainant again serviced his vehicle from the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. The opposite party contended that there is no liability to pay any amount as prayed in the complaint.
The complaint is filed to make unlawful gain from the opposite parties. So the
opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The second opposite party is the manufacturer and contended in the version
that the complaint is not maintainable and is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed in limine. According to the opposite party, any act, omission, conduct, representation etc of the dealer of the vehicle cannot made liable to the opposite party. The opposite party contended that there is no allegation against manufacturer of the vehicle and so the opposite party is to be deleted from the party array. The allegation of manufacturing defect is bald one and complainant is miserably failed to place on record even a single document to prove that the vehicle contains a manufacturing defect. It is further stated that there is no expert evidence to prove the defect of the vehicle as it is mandatory by law. According to the opposite party, the complainant concealed the fact that the subject vehicle was reported at workshop and all issues raised by the complainant were resolved to his satisfaction. The opposite party is impleaded in the complaint with malafide intention to make wrongful gains and to tarnish the good will of the second opposite party. There is no allegation of violation of warranty obligation and so allegation of deficiency or defect in goods do not arise in this complaint. So the second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits and produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 document is the copy of certificate of registration of the subject vehicle No. KL 53-P-1598. Ext. A2 series documents are the copies of legal notices and postal receipts issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 22/11/2018 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A4 document is the copy of repair order issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. The document produced by the first opposite party is marked as Ext.B1 and B2 documents. Ext.B1 document is the copy of satisfaction letter dated 24/07/2019 signed by the complainant. Ext.B2 document is the copy of customer card dated 15/11/2019 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party. No document is produced by the second opposite party. The complainant filed an interrogatory application numbered as IA 107/2021 for giving answers by the opposite parties. The Commission allowed by the application and copies served to the opposite parties. The second opposite party filed written answers before the Commission. But the first opposite party not filed their written answers to the interrogatories.
6. Heard the complainant and opposite parties in detail. Perused all documents and affidavits. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service or unfair trade
practice against the complainant.
Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1 and 2:-
The complainant averred in the complaint that he had purchased a car from the first opposite party, which was manufactured by the second opposite party. The complainant produced a copy of registration certificate of the vehicle before the Commission and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. The complainant also produced copy of tax invoice dated 22/11/2018 issued by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the vehicle and marked as Ext. A3 document. According to the complainant, the vehicle was suffered from manufacturing defect. It is alleged that on the very first day of driving, he experienced low pulling capacity and during the time of uphill driving the vehicle was turning off and the passenger had to get out of the vehicle to move forward. The complainant further alleged that he contacted the first opposite party for five times in order to rectify the defect of the vehicle. But the opposite parties failed to find out a solution. The complainant even sent legal notices to the opposite party, but they turned down. The copy of notice is produced before the Commission and marked as Ext. A2 document. But on the contrary, the opposite parties vehemently opposed the argument of the complainant. According to the opposite parties there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle and the complainant is failed to produce evidence to that regard. The first opposite party herein produced copy of satisfaction letter dated 24/07/2019 and same is marked by the Commission as Ext. B1 document. The complainant also produced copy of repair order of the vehicle and same is marked as Ext. A4 document. The contents of Ext. A4 document and back page of Ext. B1 document are look like same. But in Ext. A4 document some portions are not filled properly. At the same time, the complainant did not raise any objection to the contents of Ext. B1 document. Ext. B1 and Ext. A4 documents good show that the complainant had made complaint of low pulling capacity and entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party on 01/03/2019 for repair work. In this juncture, this Commission gone through the evidence and find that complainant was entrusted the vehicle with the first opposite party on 01/03/2019 and subsequently this complaint is filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging manufacturing defect of the vehicle. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant taken back the vehicle on 24/07/2019 and he signed a satisfactory letter to the first opposite party. According to the opposite parties, they received the vehicle on 01/03/2019 for repair work on alleged defect of pulling capacity and after the rectification the complainant did not take back the vehicle for a long period due to the external influence. At the same time complainant alleged that he approached opposite parties 4-5 times to get rectified the defect of the vehicle. So, when evaluating the available evidence, the Commission finds that the complainant was satisfied with the work done by the first opposite party and so he signed Ext.B1 document. As long as the sancticity of Ext.B1 document stands unassailed the Commission conclude that the defect of the vehicle is rectified by the opposite parties. Moreover the answers to the interrogatories did not bring out any favourable situation to the complainant. The duration of time kept the vehicle in the custody of the opposite party cannot be treated as there was for manufacturing defect to the vehicle. Moreover, the complainant did not take any step to bring the evidence of expert with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect of the subject vehicle. The allegation of manufacturing defect of other vehicles manufactured by the second opposite party is not supported by any evidence. The complainant also failed to produce the document related to the loan of vehicle. So the complainant is failed to establish his contention raised in the complaint and hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2023
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1 : Document is the copy of certificate of registration of the subject vehicle No.
KL 53-P-1598.
Ext. A2 : Series documents are the copies of legal notices and postal receipts issued
to the opposite parties by the complainant.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 22/11/2018 issued by the first
opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of repair order issued by the first opposite party to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2
Ext.B1 : Document is the copy of satisfaction letter dated 24/07/2019 signed by the
complainant.
Ext.B2 : Document is the copy of customer card dated 15/11/2019 issued to the
complainant by the first opposite party.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
