By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or to repay the value of the vehicle and to pay cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased an Ashok Leyland LMV goods carrier truck bearing Engine Number VCH013420P and Chassis Number MB1AA22E3CRV13189 from the 1st opposite party on 22.06.2012 and it was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 on the same day at the destination of the complainant at Meenangadi, Wayanad District , while purchasing the above said vehicle the 15 opposite party assured to the complainant that all the Ashok Leyland LMV goods carrier truck have got good power, efficiency, good mileage, road worthiness and free from intermittent maintenance and also got good feedback from The earlier customers and the company is giving warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the vehicle and also stated to the complainant that the company has good reputation and good service centre network in India and if any manufacturing defects caused to the vehicle during the warranty period, the opposite party No.1, No.2 and 3 will redress the defect in a speedy manner through the service centre without any cost or service charge during the warranty period and after the warranty period, with nominal service charge. It is also stated by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant that the vehicle is free from intermittent maintenance and would have only yearly maintenance. At the time of purchase of the vehicle it was also assured by the opposite party No. 1 to that complainant that services will be provided at Wayanad District and it was not provided so far in Wayanad District. After the purchase of the above vehicle the complainant taken the first free service of the vehicle on 30.08.2012 and afterwards on 24.09.2012 the complainant taken the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for second free service and opposite party No.2 conducted second service on the vehicle. Third free service on the vehicle was taken on 27.11.2012. Fourth free service on the vehicle was taken on 09.03.2013. But, the opposite party No.2 collected Rs.2,474/- on 24.09.2012, Rs.2,792/- on 27.11.2012, Rs.102/- on 26.12.2012, Rs.1,700/- on 09.03.2013 and Rs.1,280/- on 31.05.2013 even though the vehicle maintenance and service come under the warranty period.
3. The vehicle gave intermittent maintenance during the warranty period of the vehicle and afterwards. After completing the warranty period also, the vehicle gave huge complaints and caused inconvenience and expenses to the complainant for taking the vehicle from the place of complainant to the opposite party No.2, which is far about 120 kilometer. The complainant was constrained to take service on the vehicle to cure the defect with the opposite party No. 1 and No.2 on several occasions. But after the service also the vehicle was given complaint. Therefore, again, the complainant taken the vehicle for service with the opposite party No.2 on 12.09.2013 and they charged Rs.2,085/- . Again, after a week, the vehicle was got complaint and it was taken to opposite party No.2 on 19.09.2013 and they charged Rs.1,700/-. After this service again the vehicle gave trouble and hence the vehicle was taken to the Opposite party No.2 for service on 28.11.2013 and they charged Rs.771/-. Later on 12.08.2014, 28.02.2015 and 02.04.2015 the complainant taken the vehicle to the opposite party No.2 for repairs and the complainant was charged Rs.2,260/- , Rs.8,687/- Rs.2,247/- respectively . Now also the vehicle giving maintenance intermittently. The complainant also caused fuel expenses and other expenses while taking the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for service from Wayanad District to Kozhikode District. Altogether the complainant caused fuel expenses and other expenses to the tune of 20,000 for taking the vehicle to the opposite party No.2 for service from his place. The complainant purchased the vehicle on the promise given by the respondent No.1 that the vehicle is free from intermittent maintenance and would have only yearly maintenance. But contrary to the promise of the opposite party No.1, the vehicle was given regular maintenance and due to that the complainant caused heavy financial loss, mental agony and loss of income. The complainant believes that the vehicle was given regular maintenance only due to manufacturing defects of the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on several occasions during the period of warranty and during the period on which the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for the service of the vehicle requesting them to take back the vehicle and to supply a same model, new vehicle. But every time, the opposite party No.1 replied to the complainant that the grievance of the complainant had forwarded to the opposite party No.3 for redressal and no reply had been received from the part of opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 also stated to the complainant that the vehicle would be replaced immediately after receiving the approval from the opposite party No.3 and believing the words of Opposite party No.1, the complainant kept the vehicle with him even though the vehicle gives regular complaints and hence the complainant could not make complaint before this Hon'ble Forum in time. The regular maintenance of the vehicle is caused due to the manufacturing defects of the Opposite party No.3 . The opposite party No. 1, who is delivered the defective vehicle to the complainant and the opposite party No. 2, who is the authorized service center of the opposite party No.1 and No.3, who collected service charge and cost of the spare parts of the vehicle during the warranty period and thereafter had failed to cure the defect of the vehicle permanently. The opposite parties are miserably failed to discharge their obligation to the complainant. The regular complaints caused to the vehicle is a manufacturing defect. The opposite parties acts amount to unfair trade practice and due to that the complainant has suffered financial loss, damage, mental agony and loss of income. The vehicle has a permanent manufacturing defect and the complainant has to change the coolant Tank of the vehicle for more than 6 times. From the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, there was deficiency in the break system and even though it was reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and No.2, it was not cured so far. From the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, there was a problem of leak with regard to the oil seal of the wheel and even though it was reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and No.2, it was not cured so far. Moreover, there was a problem the ball joint and it was usually broken from the very beginning of the purchase itself and even though it was reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and No.2, it was not cured so far. Front side of the hub Greece cup of the vehicle were usually loosened and the coolant Tank was always leaking and the charges were collected from the complainant by the opposite party No.2 even during warranty periods. Due to the defective vehicle, the complainant could not use the vehicle continuously so as to earn his livelihood and that of his family. Due to the defective vehicle, the complainant lost many job opportunities and now also it is continuing and thus the earnings and income of the complainant is reduced and diminished, which were all caused due to the unfair trade practices of the opposite parties. The cause of action arose on 22.06.2012, the day on which the complainant purchased the vehicle and it was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 on the same day of purchase at the destination of the complainant at Meenangadi, Wayanad District and afterwards the complainant taken the vehicle for repairs and service with the opposite party No.2 on 30.08.2012, 24.09.2012, 27.11.2012, 26.12.2012, 09.03.2013, 12.08.2014, 28.02.2015 and 02.04.2015. Since the vehicle was delivered by the opposite party No.1, on the same day of purchase, at the destination of the complainant at Meenangadi, Wayanad District is within the jurisdiction of this hon'ble forum. Hence filed this complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint it is seen that this complaint is barred by limitation. Hence Notice was issued to the complainant only and heard the complainant in detail
5. On perusal of complaint, it is seen that the disputed vehicle is purchased in the year 2012 June 22 and the alleged deficiency of service is effected in the year 2012 and 2013. But the complainant approached the Forum only on 01.12.2016. Since the complaint is filed after 2 years of alleged cause of action, we are of the opinion that this complaint is barred by limitation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed on the point of limitation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2017.
Date of Filing:01.12.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
