KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 229/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 268/2013of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Registered Office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

                             (By Advs. Jayapal Menon & N.G. Mahesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Sudharman K.M., Kandotharayil House, Karipadam P.O., Thalayolaparambu, Vaikom.

2. The General Manager, A.V.G. Motors, Post Box No. 1, Baker Junction, Kottayam.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar for R2)

3. The Manager, Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Illithondu, Thalayolaparambu P.O., Kottayam.

                                   (By Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 268/2013 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (District Forum for short).  The 1^strespondent is the complainant and 2^nd & 3^rd respondents are the opposite parties 1 & 3.  The District Forum has directed the opposite parties 2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 43,838/- less amount of the bill which was given by the insurance company to the complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. 

2.  Case of the complainant is as follows:- 

The complainant on 19.06.2010 purchased a Maruti A Star VXI car bearing Reg. No. KL-36 A 8711 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party.  He had taken extended warranty offered by the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.4,595/- for option II for the period from 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2014.  According to the complainant on 12/02/2013 at about 9.00 am, when the driver started the car at Karipadam kara, on Neerppara – Thattaveli road, which was parked in front of a shop caught fire and was totally damaged.  Immediately, the matter was informed to the Thalayolaparampu police station and they prepared GD entry.   On the same day of accident, the complainant directly informed the incident to the 1^st opposite party and they insisted to entrust the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party’s authorized service center, near to the accident place, for repairing.   Then the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service center of the 2^nd opposite party and on the same day, the damaged vehicle was transported to the 3^rd opposite party, with all service details and extended warranty booklet.  The 3^rd opposite party had done all the repairing works of the vehicle after conducting the survey by the authorized Surveyor. According to the complainant, the car caught fire only due to the manufacturing defects.  The said car is having extended warranty coverage.  The survey report shows that the accident occurred only due to the defects of the car.  But the 3^rd opposite party has not provided extended warranty benefits and they had charged a sum of Rs. 85,838/- for repairing the car.  According to the complainant, the act of opposite parties in collecting repairing charges within the warranty period, which was offered by the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party, amounts to deficiency in service.

          3.  First opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the car having two years warranty and extended warranty offered by the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party had done the first service on 21/07/2010 at 1062 kms.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the extended warranty is serviceable at all dealerships of the manufacturer, the 2^nd opposite party as it is the 2^nd opposite party’s extended warranty.  Therefore any benefits if at all alleged to have been denied, is not attributable to the 1^st opposite party, the selling dealer, but, only the service dealer and the manufacturer.  The 1^st opposite party has not carried out the alleged works of the vehicle and they have not collected any amount within warranty period.  According to the 1^st opposite party, they never directed the complainant to entrust the vehicle with the authorized service center of the 2^nd opposite party and he will get the extended warranty benefit.  And on verification of Dealer management System of the 2^nd opposite party, it is seen that the complainant’s vehicle was being attended for the past 1.5 years by the 3^rd opposite party.  Furthermore the question whether the complainant’s vehicle is eligible for extended warranty coverage is not decided by the 1^st opposite party but by the manufacturer who provided extended warranty coverage.  According to the 1^st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

         4. Second opposite party filed version contending that the alleged fire occurred due to some external source and not due to any manufacturing defects.  The warranty obligation of the 2^nd opposite party had concluded before the occurrence of alleged incident on 18/06/2012.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, the repairs are not covered under the terms of warranty or extended warranty.  The complainant entered into an independent contract with the workshop for obtaining repairs and the complainant has accepted the claim from the insurance company in full and final settlement on 18/06/2013.  The extended warranty to the vehicle in question stood concluded on 12/02/2013 upon alleged incident.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant’s vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects and there is no deficiency in service on the part of them.  Hence 2^nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

          5.   Third opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant’s car was brought to the 3^rd opposite party by towing for repairing works after fire accident.  But at that time the complainant has not mentioned about the extended warranty, so the works were not undertaken under extended warranty.  The 3^rd opposite party could not find out the actual cause of the alleged fire.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant had informed that he directly will process the claim with the insurance company.  So the 3^rd opposite party had inspected the vehicle and prepared an estimate and handed over the same to the complainant.  The complainant himself had arranged the survey of the vehicle by the Surveyor and he had submitted the claim before the insurance company.  The work was started only after the consent and approval of the complainant.  The alleged cause of fire is not due to any manufacturing defects of the vehicle.  According to the 3^rd opposite party they had attended to all the works pointed out by the complainant on his vehicle and the complainant had paid the bill without any objection.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

          6.  In this case complainant and 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavits.  Ext. A1 to A12 documents were marked from the complainant’s side.  On the basis of the evidence the finding of the District Forum was that the opposite parties did not provide the extended warranty benefit as promised.  The accident is not disputed.  The extended warranty is also admitted.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 had not disputed the averments of the complainant that the vehicle was serviced in proper time as per the warranty conditions and coverage.  According to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party, since the accident is not due to the manufacturing defect, they are not liable to indemnify for the loss sustained to the complainant as repair charges.  The extended warranty booklet is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A2.  In Ext.A2, it is stated that if any defects found in the vehicle within the warranty period in electrical / mechanical parts, 3^rd opposite party is obliged to repair or replace with a new part at no cost to the owner either for parts or labour.  A list of components covered under the conditions of the warranty is appended to the warranty condition.  They are engine, gear box, front and rear wheel drive, propeller shaft, suspension and steering, braking system, fuel system, diesel injection system, air condition, electrical system and oil seals etc.  So the 2^nd opposite party offers a complete extended warranty to the complainant’s vehicle.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the cause of fire is not due any manufacturing defects.  Furthermore, the fire accident is due to external cause which requires detailed investigation by police and other authorities.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, complainant had not mentioned about the extended warranty.  So the works were not undertaken under the extended warranty and they were not able to find out the actual cause of fire.  The District Forum found that the stand taken by the opposite parties 2 and 3 were not sustainable because as per the warranty conditions nowhere in Ext.A2 it is mentioned that opposite party 2 and 3 are not liable to provide extended warranty only to the manufacturing defects.  Further on entrusting the vehicle 3^rd opposite party could very well have appointed an expert to find out the cause of fire.  Based on the above discussions the District Forum found that the act of opposite parties 2 and 3, in not providing the extended warranty benefits to the complainant, amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the District Forum ordered to pay Rs. 43,838/- less amount of bill which is paid by the insurance company to the complainant.  Opposite parties 2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.  Aggrieved by this order the 2^nd opposite party has filed this appeal. 

7.  The appellant argued that the District Forum ought to have appreciated that the complainant had bought the vehicle in question under a contract of sale of goods entered into with the 2^nd respondent herein with express terms and conditions of extended warranty.  The said terms and conditions are binding on the parties as held by the Apex Court in its various judgments.  The complainant is not entitled to claim any repair which is beyond the purview of extended warranty as mentioned under clause 3 of extended warranty booklet (Ext. A2).  The complainant miserably failed to prove any case for gross violation to contract between the complainant and opposite parties which could be held deficiency in service as alleged.  Hence they prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

8.  The appellant further stated that the District Forum has committed error of facts and law while observing that the appellant offered a complete extended warranty to the vehicle in question.  The District Forum failed to comprehend the content and true spirit of clause 3 of extended warranty wherein it is specifically mentioned that the coverage of extended warranty available when Maruti acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture.  The owner is responsible for any repair or replacement that is not covered by extended warranty.  The complainant miserably failed to prove any faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture.  The complainant failed to discharge his onus to prove manufacturing defect resulted in alleged fire.

9.  In this case the District Forum found that the stand taken by the opposite parties 2 and 3 were not sustainable because as per warranty conditions nowhere in Ext. A2 it is mentioned that opposite parties 2 and 3 were liable to provide extended warranty only to the manufacturing defects.  The view of the District Forum is not correct.  As per Ext. A2 extended warranty conditions it is clearly mentioned that (clause3) if any defects should be found in the Maruti vehicle within the extended warranty coverage period in electrical/mechanical part, Maruti’s only obligation is to repair or replace as its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for part or labour, when Maruti acknowledges that such a defect is attributable faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture.  The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements that are not covered by this warranty. 

10.  As per Ext. A2 extended warranty conditions and coverage clause B(i) under the head ‘List of components not covered’ it is mentioned that “Any repair or replacement required as a result of accident or collision”.  As per this condition also the complainant is not entitled to get extended warranty benefit for the repair of the vehicle.  In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant’s vehicle caught fire and for that reason the complainant had to repair the car.  The repairing charge of the vehicle was Rs. 85,838/-.  The insurance company had paid Rs. 47,320/- to the complainant as per the survey report.  The complainant admitted this fact at the time of cross examination.  The vehicle allegedly caught fire when it was parked and the cause of fire is not due to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant in this case has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

11.  In the light of the above mentioned reasons we conclude that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the appellant.  The order passed by the District Forum is not correct.  As per the extended warranty conditions the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite parties.  Hence we set aside the order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 268/2013 on the file of the District Forum, Kottayam. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  No order of costs.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                                      RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER