IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 11th day of July, 2023.
Filed on 07.01.2023
Present
1. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President-in-charge )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.5/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Maneesh Chandranandan 1. Sri.Kedarnath Lakshmi Kanthan
Puthen Parambu Director, Intrepid Works Pvt.Ltd.
Beach ward Kuthirapanthy Near Govt.Guest House
Thiruvampady P.O. Arattuvazhy P.O.
Alleppey-688002 Alappuzha-688007
2. The General Manager
Meridian Moto, A Unit of Intrepid-
Works Pvt.Ltd., Arattuvazhy P.O.
Alappuzha-688007
3. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder
Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra
(Adv.Saji Mathew )
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows:-
The complainant is a tourist taxi driver. The 1st opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 3rd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is an authorized automobile dealership of the 3rd opposite party, is providing sales showroom and service facility. The complainant is a cardiac patient and is the owner of the disputed taxi and he drives the taxi by himself, for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The car Mahindra Marazzo is having registration number KL 08 BS 3125 (Date of registration was 07.01.19. On 23.10.2022, while he was driving the car with customers near Bison valley in Idukki District, the vehicle stopped since there was breakdown to the vehicle. He took the vehicle to the dealer Mahidra Meridian Motor Service centre at Alleppey, using a crane for which he had to spend Rs.14,000/-.
The complainant requested to complete the service at the earliest. The service manager, after checking the vehicle, informed that the repairs will take a maximum of ten days and promised to return the vehicle within 10 days. The service manager then gave the “Manual Repair Order Form No.2929 dated 24.08.2022. The service advisor and also the customer relations manager ensured the confirmation of the return of the car. However the vehicle was not returned even after the promised period. The complainant contacted on several days over phone requesting the completion of the repairs and the return the car, considering his financial circumstances and necessity for the car. He also went there directly on several days, met the service manager/ advisor and requested to return the car after repairs without delay. But the service centre authorities told several lame excuses for the delay. On several days on which the complainant visited the service centre, he could see that the vehicle was kept in the place where it was placed in the same condition covered by dust, which goes on to prove that no one has attended the vehicle. The complainant, on 23.12.2022 informed the service manager that he is going ahead with legal steps to get the vehicle repaired. On the next day 24.12.2022, after two months of handing over the vehicle, the service advisor called him and informed that the vehicle has been repaired and hence can be taken away. The complainant reached there immediately and accepted the vehicle and remarked in the service feedback form that he is totally unhappy for the delay of two months for the repair. The complainant alleged that the vehicle took only a day for the repair, after he informed of taking legal steps. As such, it is clear that there is utter deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Had the opposite parties taken initiative to repair the vehicle on the next day itself after handing over for repairs, several hardships experienced by the complainant could have been avoided. Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint and sought following reliefs.
1. To direct the opposite parties to pay the loss of income ie, Rs.5000x 60 days = 3,00,000/- ( Three lakhs) to the complainant.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for deficiency in service and litigation costs to the complainant.
2. Version filed by the 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
The transactions between the dealer and 3rd opposite party are on principal-to-principal basis. The dealers places bulk orders for vehicles and the 3rd opposite party supplies vehicles in large numbers as per the booking. It is pertinent to note that the complainant is the 3rd owner of the vehicle. This opposite party never had any transactions with the complainant and therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party. There is no deficiency in service involved in this case and as such the complainant has no right to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The present complaint is filed without any bonafides but on an experimental basis. It is clear from the pleadings that the complainant is using the subject vehicle for commercial purpose. The complainant cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ as defined in S.2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The vehicle delivery date is 10.12.2018 and the vehicle had clocked 1,14,326 Kms at the time of alleged incident. It is learnt that vehicle was not having a valid RSA scheme and hence the towing by the crane service was provided by the dealer under chargeable basis. This opposite party is not aware of the transactions of the complainant with other opposite parties or dealer. It is learnt that the vehicle was towed to the dealership and in initial diagnosis it was observed that the issue was due to the failure of Turbo charger and it also affected the performance of the engine. Hence to avoid the inconvenience to customer in future the engine overhauling was carried out along with the replacement of Turbo charger. The complainant meanwhile had asked the dealer to complete the repair of body damages happened due to an accident to the rear portion of the vehicle under insurance.
The allegations that the complainant contacted the service center and met the service manager/ advisor of the service centre and requested to return the vehicle after repairing, that the vehicle was kept there it was placed in the same condition etc. are not admitted by this opposite party. It is submitted that the vehicle was having both body repairs and mechanical repairs. Since the accident job repairs were carried out through insurance, certain approvals from insurance authority were required and along with that dealer had initiated the mechanical repairs. The initial survey for the accidental repair claims were carried out on 25.10.22 and the resurvey was on 28.11.22. The repair invoiced and handed over to insurance company on 28.11.22. During the accidental repair jobs, the necessary parts for engine overhauling was ordered by dealer to avoid any delay. The engine overhauling was done by removing the engine from the vehicle and while the accident repairs were in progress. The transactions between the complainant and service centre personnel as alleged is not admitted. All the mechanical repairs were carried out under warranty repairs as a gesture of goodwill and there was no charge levied from complainant for this mechanical repair and there was no delay occurred in delivering the vehicle to customer after repairs. It is learnt that the vehicle was delivered to customer on 24.12.2022 after necessary repairs, trials and inspections. It is denied that the repair was completed in one day as the over hauling of engine is a complicated repair and time taking repair which involves lot of skill and precision work for completion. As the vehicle was reached to workshop in towing condition and not in running, the complete diagnosis required time. After the repairs of engine is completed a thorough inspection of the complete unit was done which cannot be done in the initial stage as the vehicle was not in starting condition. Once the vehicle was started and observed certain more repairs regard to fuel injectors and the A/C system. During the engine overhauling the vehicle without engine will be kept as such or idle.
This opposite party is not liable to make any payment as claimed. The allegation that average income of the complainant is Rs.5000/- per day is not admitted and if so he can be treated only as a commercial taxi operator. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. The service center or dealer are not subordinates as alleged. Further that for the accident repairs carried out there is no warranty coverage also. It is denied that all the opposite parties are liable to compensate to the complainant as alleged. The complainant is claiming exorbitant amounts without any basis. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the service center or manufacturer for the time spend for repairs in the workshop of a vehicle which covered 1,14,326 kms and also body works due to accident. There is no inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The terms and conditions of warranty and warranty coverage is specifically mentioned in the owner’s manual supplied along with each vehicle. The warranty conditions are applicable to both the owner of the vehicle as well as the manufacturer. The complainant is not entitled to make any claim against the terms and conditions of warranty as specified in the owner’s manual. The present complaint has been filed suppressing terms and conditions of warranty. The 3rd opposite party always provides after sales service through its wide network of authorized service centers. The staring date of warranty was 10.12.2018. The complainant is liable to produce the warrant policy of the vehicle.
The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed in the complaint. The manufacturer has no obligation other than what is agreed in the warranty policy. It is submitted that the first owner purchased the vehicle admittedly in the year 2018. The complainant is not entitled for any as compensation as claimed. The complainant is not entitled to get no other further reliefs in the case.
3. Points that arose for consideration are as follows: -
- Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
- Reliefs and costs?
4. The complainant appeared in person he adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The complainant was examined as Pw1and Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. Rw1 was examined from the side of the 3rd opposite party and Ext. B1 was marked. Other opposite parties remained absent and proceeded with exparte. The complainant filed argument notes. Heard both sides.
5. Point. No. 1
The case of the complainant is that he is a taxi driver and the owner of the disputed car. He drives the said vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. On 23.10.2023 while driving the vehicle, it was stopped due to a breakdown. The car was towed to the 2nd opposite party, the service centre of the 1st opposite party and entrusted with them for repair. Accordingly, Ext. A1 dtd. 24.10.2022, the manual repair form was issued by them. Even though the officials of the opposite parties assured to return the vehicle within 10 days after repairs, the vehicle was not returned as promised. After several requests made by the complainant at last on 24.12.2022, after two months the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Ext. A2 dt.24.12.2022, the service Feedback form issued by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant alleged that the deficiency in service of the opposite parties badly affected his livelihood and he suffered a heavy financial burden. The 3rd opposite party denied the entire allegations in the complaint. Other opposite parties abstained from the proceedings of the Commission.
Undisputedly the vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on 24.10.2022 for the breakdown repairs. As per Ext. A2 the same was returned on 24.12.2022. In which the complainant endorsed his displeasure for the delay in delivery of the vehicle. The complainant alleged that due to the said delay, he faced various financial difficulties. Seems that the 1st&2nd opposite parties remained absent and proceeded with the exparte. It is to be noted that the vehicle was taken for repairs by the above opposite parties but only the 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle is contesting. One of their contentions is that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant since the complainant is the 3rd owner of the vehicle. The transactions between the 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party are on principal to principal. On perusal of records, nothing is before us to substantiate said contention of the opposite party. One of the major allegations in the complaint is that the complainant visited the premises of the opposite party and he saw the vehicle was kept there in the same condition as when it was entrusted which indicates that no one has attended the same. But the opposite party objected to said allegation and contended that the vehicle was having both body repairs and mechanical repairs. Accident jobs were carried out through insurance and while progressing with said work necessary parts of the engine overhauling were ordered and overhauling was done by removing the engine from the vehicle. From the above pleadings and oral testimony of their witness indicated that major repairs were done on the vehicle and several spare parts were replaced. But it is to be noted that the opposite parties have not been possible to bring any evidence including oral or documentary evidence required in this case to prove said contention. During the cross-examination of Rw1, the Customer Care Manager of the opposite party deposed that after the spare parts are ordered, those will be received within 7 days. But he doesn’t know when got the spare parts of the disputed vehicle. Further deposed that hn h¶ kabw starting condition  Bbn-cp-¶n-Ã. AXn-\m initial diagnosis sN¿Ww AXn\v BZyw electric components check sN¿Ww AXn-\p-tijw starting voltage sImSp¯ tijw data FSp-¯-ti-jta GXv mechanical part sâ complaint BsW¶v t_m[ys¸Sp-I-bp-Åp. hnbpsS bYmÀ° defect a\-Ên-em-¡nb tijta repair sN¿m³ km[n-¡p. Cu hnh-c-§Ä customer- dns\ a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-cpt¶m (Q) a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-cp¶p (Ans) {]kvXm-h\ icn-bà F¶p ]d-bp¶p (Q) details customer \v sImSp-¯p F¶mWv a\-Ên-em-¡n-bXv (Ans). Further, he stated that the mechanical work was done under warranty and further deposed that the vehicle had proper service until the accident. Moreover, the opposite party has not been able to produce evidence to show what the extent of works were done on the vehicle, how many days took for finishing the repairs or whether the said work was time-consuming and when they received the spare parts. It is to be noted that the vehicle was handed over to the complainant after 61 days. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties 1& 2 are the most responsible persons to clear the above doubts. Despite the receipt of notice from the Commission opposite parties 1 & 2 purposefully evading from the proceedings. It is understood from the silence of said opposite parties that they do not have a convincing case. In the above circumstances, we find that opposite parties committed deficiency in service caused a financial burden to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that on that count opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
6. Point. No. 2
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows: -
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25000/- ( Twenty five thousand) towards compensation for deficiency service to the complainant, failing which said amount shall carry interest @8% per annum from the date of compliance of this order till realisation.
- The opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) towards litigation costs to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with 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 Commission on this the 11th day of July 2023.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Maneesh Chandranandan (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Manual repair order form
Ext.A2 - Copy of service feedback form
Ext.A3 - Copy of RC book
Ext.A4 - OP ticket
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sri.Saniesh K S (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of warranty card
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
