Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant  :-           Sri. Debasish Hota, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P-1&2                    :-  Sri Subash Ch. Pradhan, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.P-3              :-  P.K.Mishra, Advocate & Associates.

DATE OF HEARING : 04.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 12.04.2022

Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT:

1. This Complaint is made with allegation of manufacturing defects of Auto Trolley bearing No. OR-15P-4375 which was purchased by this Complainant vide in voice No. OSL/0628-10 dated 27.02.2010 from dealer O.P. No.3 and the O.P. No.1 & 2 are the manufacture and manager respectively. It is allegations of the Complainant that after 4 to 5 months of plying of the vehicle problems like gear problem, engine oil leakage, clutch spinning etc. started, during the warranty period also for gear problem on 18.01.2011 paid Rs. 275/- on 10.05.2011 oil seal changed and on 30.05.2011 he was forced to change the fuel filter. There is complaint of deficiency in service of the O.Ps.
2. The Complainant on 14.07.2011 took the vehicle to O.P. No.3 to resolve the engine problem. The O.P. No.3 kept the vehicle and advised him to come after 15 days. After 15 days when the Complainant approached O.P. No.3, the vehicle was not ready. Again O.P. No.3 said to wait for further 15 days. On 25.08.2011 the O.P. NO.3 handed over a bill of Rs. 20,645/- dated 14.07.2011. The Complainant paid the amount by borrowing from others on 18.08.2011 and took back the vehicle.
3. The Complainant complaint about the manufacturing defect but the O.Ps did not take any heed to the request. Thereafter the Complainant filed this Complaint Case.
4. The O.P. No.1 & 2 after appearance in this case filed their version and pleaded that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as the vehicle is used for commercial purpose. The Complaint is not maintainable. The Complainant has violated the service procedures. Free service during warranty period has not been availed by the Complainant and regularity has not been maintained. Expenses of Rs. 2840/- is taken on 24.09.2010 for the equipments and service which are not covered under warranty obligations. The Complainant was advised to produce the vehicle in its authorized service centre to check up but he denied it even through the warranty period is covered. There was no any manufacturing defects in the vehicle but there was irregularity in servicing by the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 & 2 are not deficient in their service and not responsible for the malfunction of the vehicle as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.
5. The O.P. No.3 is the seller of the vehicle and dealer, after appearance in the case filed his version and pleaded that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. The O.P. No.3 on the request of the Complainant brought the vehicle from Rourkela and delivered at Sambalpur as his show-room was under construction. The Complainant has violated the warranty conditions. On 14.07.2011 after expiry period the Complainant came to his workshop to repair the vehicle and without taking the job card and estimate did not come for a considerable period. On 18.08.2011 the Complainant came to the workshop, in his presence estimate was prepared as per his Complaint and requested to pay the bill after repair. There was no any manufacturing defect of the vehicle nor the Complainant has filed any document after obtaining from the competent authority or authorized person. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.
6. From the Complaint and version of the O.Ps and perusal of the documents filed by the parties, the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps ?
2. Is the Complainant was irregular in availing the warranty service from the O.P. No.3?
3. Whether the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was suffering from manufacturing defects and the O.Ps are deficient in providing services?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1: Is the Complainant a ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps ?

The O.Ps have challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the alleged vehicle has been used for commercial purpose and the Complainant is not a Consumer. The Complainant has purchased the vehicle from O.P. NO.3for an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- on 27.02.2010. He engaged his brother as driver having valid licence with an intension to maintain his family. The Vehicle purchased was for the maintenance of the family although the vehicle is a commercial vehicle. As the vehicle was used for earning livelihood and brother of the Complainant was engaged, the Complainant will come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ accordingly this Complaint is maintainable against the O.Ps.

Issue No.2: Is the Complainant was irregular in availing the warranty service from the O.Ps.?

From the documents filed by the parties it reveals that the vehicle was purchased on 27.02.2010. From the Owner’s manual it reveals that the purchaser has to obtain the warranty service as under:

1. 1^St Free Service         :    Between 500-1000 kms or 15 days whichever   is      earlier from the date of sale.
2. 2^nd Free Service    :    Between 4500-5000 kms or 60 days whichever is  earlier from the date of sale.

               3rd Free Service:Between 9500-10,000 kms or 120 days whichever is earlier from the date of sale.

whichever is earlier from the date of sale.

​.

In the present case the Complainant availed the free service as under:

                                                      Date                                    Kms Run

1. 1^st Free service                          07.05.2010                                    4,340

Warranty Service                      24.09.2010                                    12,000

Paid job                                  10.05.2011                                       18,610

Paid job                                   30.05.2011                                      20,176

From the above dates and Kilometers run of the vehicle it is crystally clear that the Complainant has not followed the warranty conditions and till 30.05.2011 the vehicle run for 20,176 Kms.

As the Complainant filed to avail the warranty service, the plea of ‘manufacturing defect’ is not tenable. The Complainant failed to establish the fault, imperfection or short coming in the quality, potency, standard etc. of the vehicle. There is no any report or to prove the imperfectness of the vehicle. Rather from the date of purchase to 30.05.20211 the vehicle has run 20,170 kms which proves that there was no any manufacturing defects in the vehicles.

Accordingly, the issue no.2 answered in favour of the O.P.s

Issue No.3: Whether the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was suffering from manufacturing defects and the O.Ps are deficient in providing services?

In the issue no. 2 the Manufacturing defects part is discussed.

Relating to service provision, the main allegations of the Complainant that on 14.07.2011 when the vehicle did not start and run smoothly approached the O.P. No.3. The Vehicle was having gear problem, clutch problem, engine problem etc. During the period the warranty was not available. Although requisition(Issue) slip proves the problem of the vehicle, payment slip of Rs. 20,448/- the complaint while taking the delivery of the vehicle remarked “not satisfy”. The Complainant paid the amount on 18.08.2011.

After examination of the service slips dated 07.05.2010, 24.09.2010 & 08.01.2011 the charges taken by the O.P. No.3 is Rs. 364/-, Rs. 2540/- and Rs. 274/-, respectively oil maxi mile, fuel filter etc were changed. On 24.09.2010 the O.P. No.3 replaced idler shaft and diff. bearing.

From the owner’s manual it reveals that the conditions where warranty is applicable and where warranty is not applicable. While bringing the manual to public notice it is the duty of O.P. no.1 & 2 to specify the products where warranty is availe. Taking the benefit of this situation the dealers are taking undue advantage from the costumers.

As the manual submitted by the O.Ps does not disclose the products where warranty shall be provided specifically, the O.Ps should take special care in future. It is creating confusion and unfaithful situations.

Accordingly this issue is answered partly in favour of the O.Ps and partly in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No.4: What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

To promote the sale of a product the producers and sellers are giving undue assurances but when the sale is complete they totally ignore the consumer. In the instant case, the O.P. No.3 sold the alleged vehicle to the Complainant giving sale letter, from Rourkela office. During the period the Jharsuguda workshop was and Sambalpur workshop under construction. The Sambalpur workshop was not equipped with all machines, When the O.P. NO.3 sold the vehicle, the Sambalpur workshop was not properly functional, as admitted by the parties. While selling a product the seller should provide all service facilities. In the instant case it is lacking.

Accordingly it is ordered.

The Complainant is partly allowed on contest. There was no any manufacturing defects in the product but the O.Ps are deficient in their service for which the case has been initiated. Accordingly, the O.Ps are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant, Rs. 10,000/- for non-specific provision of warranty procedure and Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 12^th day of April- 2022.