BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 238/2012 Filed on 25.07.2012

ORDER DATED: 30.04.2015

Complainant:

 

Rani S. Raj, W/o Sahithyarajan, residing at T.C 2/455(2), Nivedhyam, Ulloor, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.

 

                                 (By Adv. S.A. Sundar)

Opposite party:

The Manager, Maruti True Value, Hercules Automobiles Int’l (P) Ltd., Vazhayila, 6^th Mile Stone, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram-695 564.

 

                                                         

This C.C having been taken as heard on 26.02.2015, the Forum on 30.04.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Complainant purchased a used Maruti 800 car with Reg. No. KL01 K 7569 for a resale value of Rs. 58,500/- from the Used Car Mela conducted by the opposite party during the month of December 2011.  In the advertisement and brochure published by the opposite party regarding that mela it was assured that one year warranty and 3 free services were offered for the cars resold.  She was assured that the above said vehicle was inspected by the opposite party’s engineers and made the vehicle in good condition and perfect for retest that is to be held on May 2012.  After using the vehicle for a week complainant noticed several complaints and she rectified it by spending Rs. 2,800/-.  After running 600 km of purchase it was found that the engine sustained a major defect.  So the complainant took the vehicle to Indus Motors, authorized dealer of Maruti.  During their inspection she was told that the engine is to be reset for which an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid.  So she enquired about the warranty made by the opposite party, but they washed off their hands from their earlier assurance.  So she repaired the vehicle by spending Rs. 56,000/-.  The above said act of the opposite party is against the warranty and after sales service assured to the complainant.  So she sent advocate notice claiming compensation for which a frivolous reply was made by the opposite party.  So she approached this Forum for getting Rs. 60,000/- which was spent by her for repairing the vehicle within the warranty period along with compensation and costs. 

Notice was issued to the opposite party, but they neither appeared nor contested the matter.  So we proceeded exparte against them. 

Points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any relief as claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed this complaint for seeking compensation for the amount she spent for repairing the car during the warranty period as claimed by her.  The main contention of the complainant is that for the used car she bought there is warranty for one year.  For proving the same she produced Ext. P1 photocopy of brochure regarding the ‘Used Car Mela’.  On perusing Ext. P2, the pre-owned car booking form, in the column ‘warranty details of car’ a tick mark is seen on the choice ‘no warranty’.  Ext. P2 is signed by the complainant as well as the authorized representative of the opposite party.  So it is a valid document.  Moreover in the delivery receipt that is Ext. P4 the complainant has signed accepting the clause “I/We will be responsible for its maintenance, accident, road tax, insurance, chalans or any kind of misuse after taking the delivery of vehicle”.  Though she claims that one year warranty is promised by the opposite party, there is no evidence before us to prove that the vehicle she purchased has a warranty for one year.  Ext. P7 is the advocate notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party.  Though in the complaint she avers that a frivolous reply has been received by her from the opposite party, it is not produced before us.  So we do not have any other alternative rather than to dismiss the complaint as the complainant fails miserably to establish her case. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of April 2015.

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER 

 

            Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

 

            Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

jb

 

C.C. No. 238/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Photocopy of brochure regarding the ‘Used Car Mela’.

P2     - Pre-owned Car Booking Form dated 11.12.2011.

P3     - Cash receipt No. 613.

P4     - Delivery receipt dated 12.12.2011.

P5     - Copy of certificate of registration.

P6(series)- Receipt No. 12 dated 02.04.2012.

P6(a) - Job card retail invoice dated 29.02.2012 of Indus Motor Co.

P6(b) - Job card retail invoice dated 29.03.2012

P6(c) - Job card retail invoice dated 29.03.2012  

P7     - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.05.2012.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb