DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 24/03/2018
CC/48/2018
Usha,
W/o. Chandrasekharan Pilla,
Sreesailam, EMS Road,
Cherpulassery Post, Ottapalam, Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. P. K. Dileep & A. Ajayakumar)
Vs
- KVR Auto Cars Pvt.Ltd.,
APIV/42A, Kozhikkode Road,
Thirurkad, Perinthalmanna,
Malappuram,
Rep. by its General Manager
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasanthkunj, New Delhi – 110 071
- KVR Auto Cars Pvt.Ltd.,
Ottapalam Cherpulassery Road,
Cherpulassery – 679 503
Palakkad - Opposite parties (Additional OPs 2 & 3 are impleaded as per order dated 19/7/2018 in IA/173/2018) (OPs 1 & 3 by Adv. M/s.Harikumar Menon & K.Vijaya
O.P.2 by Adv. M/s.Jayabal Menon & K.Dhananjayan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Pleadings of complainant, stated precisely, are that immediately after purchase of their car, they found that vehicle was emanating a sound from the gear box. The car also suffered from reduced pulling when the gear was shifted to 3rd gear. Even after repeated inspections by OPs 1&3, the defects could not be rectified. This complaint caused financial loss to the complainant and her husband. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed.
- OPs 1 & 3 filed version repudiating complaint claims. Even though the opposite parties tested the vehicle they could not find any defects.
- OP2 filed version stating that the vehicle had undergone extensive and exhaustive tests before being supplied. There is no defects of any nature whatsoever and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues arise for consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved that the car suffers from manufacturing defects?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
5. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit marked Ext.A1 to A10.
(ii) OPs filed proof affidavit. OPs 1&3 marked Exts.B1 to B3
(iii) Reports filed by the Expert Commissioner were marked as Ext.C1 & C2. Expert Commissioner was examined as CW1
Issue No. 1
6. Complainants case is that the car purchased by the complainant suffers from some unnatural sound while being plied. In order to ascertain the facts of the case it is necessary to highlight the events chronologically.
Sl.No | Date | Particulars | Remarks |
1 | 28/08/2017 | Date of delivery | Ext.A10 |
2 | 01/12/2017 | 2nd visit in service station. Complaint of noise from front | Ext.B3 |
3 | 08/12/2017 | 3rd visit in service station. Complaint of noise from front | Ext.B3 |
4 | 21/12/2017 | 4th visit in service station. Complaint of noise from gear box | Ext.B3 |
5 | 24/08/2018 | Complaint filed | |
6 | 18/09/2021 | Vehicle found to suffer from unnatural noise | Ext.C2 |
7. Chronology shown above, as availed from the documents shown in the final column of the schedule, shows that the complainant’s car suffers from some unnatural voice emanating from the front part. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant had not approached the opposite party service station after 4 visits during 2017. But Ext.C2 shows that the same unnatural sound persisted even during 2021, ie. for over four years.
8. From the observations above, the conclusion that can be arrived at is that the car suffers from some latent mistakes / complaints resulting in the unnatural sound, which persisted over the years. Such complaints, though a nuisance does not affect the performance of the car.
9. We are of the opinion that even though the complaint does not affect the performance of the car per se, it would hamper the complainant and the occupants therein from enjoying a hassle free travel.
Issue Nos. 2
10. Resultant to findings in issue No.1 we hold that the complainant has succeeded in proving that the car suffers from manufacturing defect. Therefore deficiency in service on the part of O.P.2 is explicit.
11. The defect, however trivial is one that cannot be rectified by the O.P.s 1 and 3. The O.P.s have generated profit from the sale of the car to the complainant. Hence a liability is also cast on them. The usual stand that a dealer’s relationship with the manufacturer is on a principal-to-principal basis and that this being a case of manufacturing defect and that their liability is clear, if adopted, would undermine the rights conferred upon a consumer, wherein he would be left in the lurch. The complainant would be left to fight a corporate giant, the manufacturer, with immeasurable resources at their disposal, having their offices at some far corner of India, inaccessible for a layman with meager resources, when their business is being carried out under their nose through agencies like the O.P.s 1 and 3. Since the business of O.P.s 1 and 3 and O.P. 3 are so intricately interwoven, the O.P.s can very well set off any accounts due to each other in their routine course of business.
Taking into consideration the above reasoning for practical considerations, as well as the fact that O.P.s 1 and 3 generated profit from the sale of defective car, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s 1 to 3 also.
Issue Nos. 3&4
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case whereby the defect does not affect the performance of the car but only causes nuisance we are not inclined to allow the entire complaint reliefs.
13. We hold that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would suffice as a reasonable compensation for the disturbance and nuisance. Complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000/-.
14. Considering the fact that the second opposite party is having their office at New Delhi opposite parties 1 or 3 is directed to comply with the direction above. The opposite parties 1 and 3 may set off this amount in the course of their routine business with OP2.
15. The above order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party No.3 shall pay an amount of Rs.500/ per month or part thereof as solatium to the complainant, indemnifiable from the second opposite party.
16. With the above findings and orders, this complaint stands allowed in part.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of July, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Original invoice dated 18/8/2017
Ext.A2 – Original counter sale tax 21/8/2017
Ext.A3 – Warranty cards for 1st and 2nd service
Ext.A4 – Original policy schedule
Ext.A5 – Original tax receipt
Ext.A6 – Original tax invoice dt.31/8/2017
Ext.A7 – Original tax invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration dt.6/9/2017
Ext.A8 – Original invoice dated dt/8/12/2017
Ext.A9 – Original invoice dated 21/12/2017
Ext.A10 –Original registration certificate for vehicle bearing No.KL-51-H-9141
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Print out of bank statement of unnumbered bank account
Ext.B2 – Print out of receipt voucher dated 26/8/2017
Ext.B3 – Print out of vehicle history of vehicle bearing No.KL-51-H-9141
Court Exhibit:
C1 – Commission report dated 9/12/2019
C2 – Commission report alongwith vehicle inspection certificate dated 18/19/2021
Third party documents:
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
Nil
Court Witness:
CW1 – A.K.Rajeevan (Expert Commissioner)
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
