Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased a car (Tata Indigo Manza ABS) bearing Regd.No. OR-15P-3443 from Lexus Motors, Calcutta on 12.03.2010.The car after two years of warranty period has got extended warranty for further two years on dtd.20.05.2011. It is alleged by the complainant that during extended warranty period the vehicle gave trouble. He alleged that the vehicle started trouble time to time. He knocked the door of the OP but the OP did not change the turbo in the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant submitted to replace the defective parts and to pay compensation.
4. The OP No.2 is set ex-parte. The OP No. 1 & 3 filed respective written version denying the allegations. According to the OP No.1 & 3 who are contesting submitted that complainant has given all free service but the extended warranty does not cover certain feature for which complainant has alleged defects. However, they have submitted that the complainant has not proved the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is observed that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the case is dismissed.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has not considered the complaint with documents with proper perspectives. According to him he has extended warranty condition and he was not given opportunity to prove same to produce the copy of the extended warranty and also the benefits available thereunder. However, he submitted that he was not given opportunity to adduce evidence but dismissed the complaint. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting the impugned order.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. Learned District Forum has given his observation in para-7 in impugned order which is as hereunder:-
“ We have gone through the case in details, perused the documents minutely as submitted by the complainant as well as by the Ops, we have heard the advocates from both the sides at length and have observed that the complainant has not furnished a copy of terms and conditions relating to extended warranty as claimed to be applicable for the purpose. The OP has also not submitted the same for which we are unable to know what are the benefits available under the extended warranty conditions. Thus the complainant has failed to prove the benefits which he would have received under the extended warranty conditions and what are the benefits denied by the Ops out of such benefits covered under such extended warranty. The complainant has neither produced any expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect of the car or of the Turbo engine, nor he has made a request to this Hon’ble Forum for a systematic taste of the car or of the Turbo engine in the laboratory in order to prove that the car or the Turbo engine is having manufacturing defect. From the service records as produced by Ops. 1,2 & 3 it is learnt that the complainant has availed free service and also paid services. The complainant has also failed to prove that he has availed all the services as per the time schedule as filed by the Ops for the purpose. The complainant has availed services from various service centre separately. The OP vide their written version has stated that the repair and replacement of parts of Turbo and engine are not covered under extended warranty for which the complainant did not get the benefit of extended warranty to which the complainant has not raised any objection. The letter dt.09.08.2014 of the Manager, Customer support, Tata Motors has intimated that the said vehicle was not in warranty/extended warranty for which the work needs to be done on paid basis. The complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle was under extended warranty during such period. Regarding “Lack of boost” of the said vehicle as alleged by the complainant, Mr. U.T.Bhutia, Orissa PVBU Tata Motors has replied vide his letter dtd.24.01.2014 that their team had a joint trail with the complainant during November,2013 and found that the performance of the vehicle of the complainant was equal with a new Manza. They have also commented on the said issue as a perception related issue to which the complainant did not object.”
The above order does not disclose to have discussed any evidence of both the parties. Also we found no issue has been framed to decide the crux of the matter. The main plank of the agreement is the terms and conditions of the extended warranty but said fact not been discussed. On the otherhand, we felt both the parties should be allowed evidence with regard to extended warranty and terms and conditions thereunder. Therefore, appeal is allowed by remanding same to the learned District Forum to allow both the parties to adduce further evidence if any and pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 21.11.2021 to take further instruction.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
