IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of June, 2017.
Filed on 02/02/2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in
C.C.No.40/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Francis. P.V 1. The Manager,
S/O Varghese MGF Motors Ltd.,
Panavelil House Dr.No.VIII/482
Poomkavu, Pathirappally PO Punnapra, Alappuzha 688004.
(By Adv. K.T. Anish Mon) (By Adv. Joji K.Antony)
2. The Regional Officer,
Cochin South Ro-3
Hyundai Motor India Ltd,
6th Floor, Vankarath Towers
Building, NH Bypass Singnal
Jn, Cochin.24
(By Adv. V.Vijayakumar)
O R D E R
SMT ELIZABETH GEORGE ( PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant purchased an Eon Era Model Car from the 1st opposite party. The car was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. After one month of purchase on 25/02/2015 when the complainant tried to start the car but it was not started. So the service team of 1st opposite party reached the spot and got the vehicle started. On 12/5/15, 18/6/15, 9/10/15 and 11/11/15 the same complaint was repeated. On 14/12/15 when the vehicle was taken for second service the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to rectify the defect of starting problem. While returning the vehicle after service they assured that they had rectified the defects fully. But same complaint again occurred on 19/12/15. The same problem repeated on 31/12/15, 24/1/16 and 25/1/16. The recurring defect occurred on the newly purchased vehicle caused much mental agony inconveniences and financial difficulties to the complainant. Alleging defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed.
2.Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows.
The complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986. On examination of the vehicle by the experts of the company it is learnt that Air Condition system as well as the Audio system also worked without starting the engine hence the charge of the battery was lost hence the same could not be started. It is learnt on examination of vehicle that the petitioner switch off the engine but he keep the ignition in on position and the same can be a cause for loss for battery. That is the reason and before the warranty period of the battery, the battery ruined and the same was replaced by the 1st opposite party free of cost. There after no complaint was reported by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
3.Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
Complainant is not a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act. All the disputes are inter-se between the complainant and the dealer and this opposite party being a manufacturer is not liable for the same. The allegations that the car had to be push-started, on so many occasions the car stopped and the complainant faced problems are denied as false and concocted. The complainant is put to strict proof in this regard. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged. Further all the disputes are inter-se between the complainant and the dealer and this opposite party being a manufacturer is not liable for the same.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A9. First opposite party examined as RW1 and documents pproduced were marked as Ext.B1 series (8 Nos) to B10. The Expert Commissioner was examined as CW1 and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1
4.Points for considerations are:
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1
According to the complainant his newly purchased car was having starting trouble. Ext.A5 shows that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 17/1/15 from the 1st opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that on 25/2/15 when he tried to start the vehicle it was not started and the service team of the 1st opposite party reached the spot and got the vehicle started. He further alleged that on 12/5/15, 18/6/15, 9/10/15, 11/11/15 the same complaint repeated. In order to substantiate the allegations of the complainant he produced some documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A8. According to the 2nd opposite party there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and all the disputes are inter-se between the complainant and the dealer and hence the manufacturer is not liable for the same. The 1st opposite party filed version stating that Air condition system as well as audio system worked without starting the engine and hence the charge of the battery was lost and hence the vehicle could not be started. While cross examining the RW1 he admitted "Fsâ Adnhn hml\w hgnbnÂsh¨v 2 {]mhiyw \n¶pt]mbn. A§s\ 2 {]mhiyw sImp h¶n«pv." According to the complainant since the starting problem occurred several times during the time of second service dated 14/12/15 he requested the 2nd opposite party to cure the defect completely. Ext. A4 is the second service report dated 14/12/15. Ext. A4 shows that under customers request “starting trouble check up” is mentioned. According to the complainant after the second service he was told by the 1st opposite party that they have rectified the starting problem, but on 19/12/15 while he was going to Athirappally along with his family the starting problem again occurred and only after pushing the vehicle with the help of others the vehicle started. The document produced by the 1st opposite party the ‘complaint form (Annexure 2 )dated 19/12/15’ Ext.B1(g) shows that the complaint regarding starting trouble is noted. More over Ext.B7 dated 3/2/16 the satisfaction note by the complainant also referred complaint dated 19/12/15. In Ext.A2 dated 27/1/16 the problem reported is starting trouble. According to the complainant on 24/1/16 and 25/1/16 also the starting problem of the vehicle repeated and hence on 27/1/16 the service men of the 1st opposite party had taken the vehicle to the servicing center. In the version of the opposite party stated that on 1/2/16 they replaced the battery and there after no complaint is reported from the complainant. According to the complainant Eon cars manufactured in the year 2015 between January 1 and 31 2015, were recalled by the manufacturer for inspection of the clutch cable fouling with battery cable and replace the battery cable if found damaged. Complainant produced one document and is marked as Ext.A9 that contains the list of vehicle of same type of Eon purchased during the month of January 2015 which recalled by the Hyundai Motor India, the 2nd opposite party in order to inspect the clutch cable fouling with battery cable and replace the battery cable if found damaged. Opposite party admitted that document, but according to the opposite party the vehicle of the complainant not included in the list of vehicles recalled by the company. It is pertinent to see that no document produced by the 1st opposite party to prove that they informed the complaint of the complainant to the manufacturer. Ext.A9 also shows that the 2nd opposite party recalled some vehicle which manufactured in the year 2014 due to the complaint in front light switch. According to the complainant his vehicle has still some complaints and in order to prove that an expert commissioner was appointed to inspect the vehicle. The expert commission report produced is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 the expert commissioner stated that no defects were noticed during the inspection except the damaged switch of cabin roof light that is in on position which may drain the battery while the vehicle is idle. He also stated that the complaint could be due to the defective ECM, sensors of the vehicle which can create immobilization of the vehicle. But during the cross examination he deposed that he did not notice the defect of E.C.M during inspection.
From the above discussion it is clear that the vehicle of the complainant has some defects like starting problem. The vehicle was taken several times by the 1st opposite party for repairing the defect. But they failed to inform the defect to the manufacturer. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was a new one which purchased from the 2nd opposite party and it cannot be denied that when a person purchases a new vehicle from a reputed manufacturer one would expect that it would give him trouble free service for a reasonable period of time. In the instant case complainant had to take his vehicle to the servicing center due to the problem of starting trouble and it will surely caused the complainant much mental agony and several inconvenience and it should be compensated. Even though there was no manufacturing defect as noticed by the expert commissioner the defect of damaged switch of cabin roof light still exists. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties 1 and 2 should remove all the defects of the vehicle of the complainant and issue a clear-cut certificate signed by a Senior Officer of the manufacturer not below the rank of the General Manager declaring in categorical terms that the vehicle is free from all defects.
In the result complaint is allowed.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.20,000(Rupees Twenty thousand) towards compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered and Rs. 3000/-(Rupess Three thousand) towards cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to issue a certificate as mentioned above to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D (Member)
Appendix
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - Francis P.V(witness)
Ex.A1 - Photocopy of Certificate of Registration
Ext.A2 - Customer vehicle details dtd 27/1/16
Ext.A3 - Receipt dtd 15/12/15
Ext.A4 - Repair Order
Ext.A5 - Retail invoice dtd 17/1/15
Ext.A6 - Photocopy of Driving Licence
Ext.A7 - Photographs ( 7 Nos)
Ext.A8 - Photocopy of retail invoice
Ext.A9 - Copy of Hyundai Eon car recalls notice
Evidence of the opposite party
RW1 - Faizal Kattoo(Witness)
Ext.B1 (a) - Photocopy of Repair Order
Ext.B (b) - Copy of MaterialRequisiton Slip Pad
Ext.B1© - Photocopy of Tax invoice
Ext.B1(d) - Photocopy of Repair Order
Ext.B1(e) - Photocopy of Repair Order
Ext.B1(f) - Photocopy of Satisfaction Note
Ext.B1(g) - Photocopy of Complaint Form(Annexure 2)
Ext.B1(h) - Photocopy of Repair Order
Ext.B2 - Repair Order dtd 19/3/15
Ext.B3 - Repair Order dtd 14/12/15
Ext.B4 - Material Requisition Slip-Pad
Ext.B5 - Repair Order
Ext.B6 - Tax Invoice dtd 14/12/2015
Ext.B7 - Satisfaction Note
Ext.B8 - Repair Order dtd 1/2/16
Ext.B9 - Technical Service Bulletin
Ext.B10 - List of Recall Vehicles.
Court Exhibits
CW1 - Biju K.G(Witness)
C1- Commission Report
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
