D.O.F               02.02.2022

                                                                                                                    D.O.D               31.08.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUDUKKOTTAI

BEFORE:

                 Thiru. K. Mohandoss, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                                  PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. S. Sugunadevi, M.A., M.L.,                                                                    MEMBER 1

                 Thiru. A. Alagesan B.E., E.P.G.D.M.,                                                             MEMBER 2

CC.  09 / 2022

DATED THIS THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST’ 2023

The Senior Principal,

Mount Zion Matric Higher Secondary School,

Pudukkottai Town                                                                                      … Complainant

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. TATA Motors Limited,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre,

8E, Maha Kali Vaves Road,

MIODC Andheri Road, Mumbai,

Maharastra                                                                                                     … First Opposite Party

The Manager,

Kaveri Garage Private Limited,

276, Dindigal Main Road,

Dheeran Nagar, Piratiyur,

Trichy                                                                                                                … Second Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant: Thiru P. Jawahar, Advocate

Counsel for the First Opposite Party: Thiru S. Chokkalingam, Advocate

Counsel for the Second Opposite Party: Thiru A. Manoharan, Advocate

This case was heard on various dates and finally posted on 18.08.2023. The written version of the first opposite party / The Managing Director, M/s. TATA Motors Limited, Mumbai was filed on 24.06.2022 and the written version of the second opposite party / The Manager, Kaveri Garage Private Limited, Trichy was also filed on the same day 24.06.2022. The proof affidavit of the complainant side was filed and marked on 13.10.2022. The proof affidavit of the first opposite party side was filed and marked on 16.12.2022. The proof affidavit of the second opposite party was filed and marked on 03.02.2023. The written arguments of the second opposite party side was filed on 17.02.2023 and their oral arguments were heard orally on the same day. The written arguments of the first opposite party was also filed along with citations on 17.03.2023 and their oral arguments were heard on 07.07.2023. The complainant side did not file the written argument despite conditional orders on 28.07.2023 as well as on 11.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 which mentioned clearly by this commission that failure of filing the written arguments as well as oral arguments, this commission would reserve the case for order without their arguments. The complainant side orally argued their case on 18.08.2023 and did not file the written arguments from their side and as per the conditional order this commission reserved the case for order on 18.08.2023. This commission has decided to pronounce the order based on the material evidence presented before this commission as well as on merit today 31.08.2023.         

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Thiru A. Alagesan, Member 2

Brief Summary of Complainant side:

1. The complainant has his occupation as Senior Principal of Mount Zion Matric Higher Secondary School with office at Pudukkottai. The complainant opted to purchase a standard pleasure car with all the facilities for trips to the places of his choice besides visiting his office in Pudukkottai town.

2. As the first opposite party produce No. 1 product in India and in abroad, as well as the products are well known for its standard, the complainant has chosen to purchase a car of his choice from the dealer of the first opposite party.

3. The second opposite party is the authorized agent of the first opposite party and so, the complainant visited the showroom maintained by the second opposite party at Trichy. The second opposite party office members showed the cars at their disposal and explained about the names, models, price etc., Finally, the complainant chose to purchase TATA HEXA car from the second opposite party and on enquiry the second opposite party informed the complainant that the said vehicle is quoted with Rs. 13,46,296/-. The complainant was informed about the standard of the car, the mileage per litre of petrol the vehicle may give, functional capacity for purchasing vehicle.

4. The complainant had already known and heard about the standard of the product of TATA and so, the complainant chose to purchase the TATA HEXA at Rs. 13,46,296/- on 30.12.2017, the invoice was written in favour of the complainant and the complainant also paid the price quoted in the invoice on the same day.         

5. The second opposite party did not deliver the vehicle to the complainant on the date of payment of the invoice price. The invoice number is IKAVTRI17181000187. Later the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 05.01.2018 and since then, the complainant had been operating the vehicle and it was found fit and proper.

6. When the complainant operated the car on January 2021, it suffered a break down. At the earliest, the complainant informed the defect in the vehicle to the second opposite party and wanted the vehicle to be set in order, as the motion of the vehicle has been brought to halt. The second opposite party informed the complainant to bring the vehicle to the second opposite party for verification of the problem.

7. The complainant mentioned to the second opposite party that there is warranty for the vehicle and the second opposite party also accepted the same. In fact, the second opposite party at the time of acceptance of the vehicle for service and repairs, told that there may be no costs collected for the service provided.

8. However, when the complainant went to take delivery of the vehicle, the second opposite party demanded Rs. 46,610/- towards replacement of spares. The complainant said that the repair has taken place during warranty period, and he remained the second opposite party that he himself told that there shall be no cost for the service. But the second opposite party insisted on payment of the cost for the spares fitted in the vehicle. The complainant without any other option paid the amount of Rs. 46,610/- and took delivery of the vehicle and returned.

9. This made the complainant to think that the second opposite party has collected the sum of Rs. 46,610/- without any basis for the same. So, the complainant through his advocate issued a legal notice on 29.01.2021 for deficiency in service, and for the charges collected by the second opposite party. The notice was also issued to the first opposite party. The first opposite party replied for the notice evasively and gone blank on his own plighted word and written warranty.

10. The complainant submits that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service to this complainant. The complainant is entitled to be compensated for the payment of amount to the second opposite party.

11. The complainant submits that he is a consumer of service of the opposite parties as he purchased the car for Rs. 13,46,296/- from the second opposite party and as the vehicle suffered defect during the warranty period, there is a liability for the opposite parties. It is submitted that the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service to the complainant and also return the Rs. 46,610/- collected from complainant.

12. Therefore, it is prayed that this honourable commission be pleased to award Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also return the Rs. 46,610/- collected by the second opposite party from the complainant with cost and thus render justice.

13. Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 were marked by this complainant as proof affidavit stage to substantiate his case. Ex. A1 is about the Xerox copy of the Invoice dated 30.12.2017 for the payment of cash for the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, Ex. A2 is about the Xerox copy of the Invoice dated 19.01.2021 for the payment of Rs. 46,610/-for service charges, Ex. A3 is about the Advocate notice dated 29.01.2021 sent to the opposite parties by the complainant advocate and Ex. A4 is about the original Reply notice dated 17.02.2021 issued by the second opposite party.                         

Brief Summary of First Opposite party side:

14. The first opposite party in this case is The Managing Director, M/s. TATA Motors Limited, Mumbai. It is submitted by this opposite party that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and misconceived. It is to be dismissed in limine. Expert the averments of complaint admitted by the opposite party, all averments made in the complaint are to be strictly proved by the complainant.

15. It is submitted as part of the written version of this opposite party ‘M/s. Tata Motors Limited’, is engaged inter alia in the business of design, development, manufacturing and sale of wide range of commercial, passenger and electric vehicles and parts thereof. That this opposite party has disintegrated its ‘Passenger Vehicles Undertaking’ (Passenger Vehicles Business) and has transferred the Passenger Vehicles Undertaking to its wholly owned subsidiary company ‘TML Business Analytics Services Limited’. A copy of the office order dated 01.01.2022 is marked as Ex. B1. That pursuant to the transfer of ‘Passenger Vehicles Undertaking’, the company M/s. TML Business Analytics Services Limited has been renamed as ‘Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Limited’. A copy of the certificate of incorporation pursuant to the name change dated 17.09.2021 is marked as Ex. B2. That pursuant to the transfer of ‘Passenger Vehicles Undertaking’ and change of name all assets and liabilities pertaining to ‘Passenger Vehicles Undertaking’ of ‘Tata Motors Limited’ has been shifted to the transferee company i.e., ‘Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited’ with effect from 1^st January 2022. That, hence, M/s. Tata Motors Limited is not relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint and under the circumstances it is just and necessary that the name of M/s. Tata Motors Limited be deleted from the array of parties in the present case and replaced with the Company name ’Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited’.  Thus, the name of the company ‘Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited’ ought to be impleaded as first opposite party and the company M/s Tata Motors Limited to be deleted from the array of parties.

16. That the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and it is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this honourable commission by suppressing the material facts. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice without any documentary evidence in support of the allegation made in the complaint.

17. That the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice being established against this opposite party. Hence the averments or allegation made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.  

18. This opposite party herein relies on the judgment of the honourable National Commission in the case of Dr. K. Kumar Advisor (engineering), Maruti Udyog Ltd.  Vs Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao & Anr. [I (2010) CPJ 19 (NC)] for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in the vehicle made in the complaint. Hence this honourable commission in absence of an expert report on behalf of the complainant, ought to have directed the complainant to produce an expert’s report in support of his allegations, as provided in Section 38 (2) ( C) of the act above and in absence of the same, the allegations of the complaint cannot be established and the instant complaint ought to be dismissed with costs.

19. It is humbly submitted that the subject vehicle is in absolute roadworthy condition and that the jobs carried out on the vehicle in question are minor and running repairs, which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous extensive and faulty usage of the said vehicle. This opposite party has been prompting and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty policy as and when applicable. Therefore, the prayers as made by the complainant for refund of the repair costs are untenable and unsustainable. In view thereof, the complainant seeking for return of repair charges is contrary to law and untenable.        

20. That the relationship exists between the opposite parties is on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. It is submitted that the first opposite party cannot be held liable for any independent act and /or omission, committed by the second opposite party. It this regard, reference may be taken from the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr. (1994) 1, Supreme Court Cases 397, whereby the honourable Supreme Court observed that “reliance has to be placed on the circumstances, documents and conduct of parties to prove that the relationship of the parties is of ‘Principal and agent’ or of one of ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. In the instant case on the basis of the facts of the case, it was held that the relationship of the parties is on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. Thus, for the acts of the one opposite party, another opposite party could not be held vicariously liable.             

21. The honourable National Commission recently in R.P. No. 3315 and 3297of 2004 vide order dated 24^th May 2010, held that the liability of the manufacturer would not be there if there are no manufacturing defects surfaced with the vehicle as the relationship of the manufacturer with the dealer was that of principal to principal basis and the authorized dealer was not an agent of the principal.  Further, the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd vs Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 574 / 2021, has held that special knowledge of the disputed issue and involvement of the manufacturer have to be proved in order to establish deficiency of service against the manufacturer. The honourable Apex Court observed that “Unless the manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable, given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, were on principal to principal basis”. Without prejudice to and without admitting any deficiency in service or act or omission on the part of the other opposite party, this opposite party clarifies that there is no prima facie cause of action made out against this opposite party, as alleged about deficiency in service.

22. It is submitted that the complainant brought the subject vehicle on 04.01.2021 to the second opposite party workshop for complaint of replacing EGR after the lapse of warranty period. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was reported for starting problem wherein after inspection it was found that the EGR cooler assembly had suffered complete failure which needed replacement. The same was communicated to the complainant via phone requesting approval for repair charges of around Rs. 45,126/-. The complainant was also informed that the replacement of the spare could be done on payment basis in which the complainant had to incur the labour and other incidental service charges. Nonetheless, the complainant requested the second opposite party to replace the required spare part under warranty, as the warranty had expired, and it was rightfully denied by the second opposite party. Subsequently on 11.01.2021, the complainant gave approval to carry out the work on paid basis and the repairs were carried out by the workshop. The complainant then visited the workshop on or around 18.01.2021 and took delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with the vehicle during test drive.

23. The warranty offered on the vehicles is valid only for a stipulated warranty period and not beyond the warranty period. In order to avail benefits of warranty, the subject vehicle should be covered under the warranty or extended warranty, whereas in this case the vehicle in dispute is neither covered under warranty period nor extended warranty at that time. Further, even under the warranty policy, only the free services are performed free of labour cost by the authorized workshops of this first opposite party; and all services other than the free services must be paid for both materials and labour, material at prevailing rates for the quantity consumed and the labour at the scheduled rates.

24. It is to be noted that the complainant’s vehicle warranty expired on 29.12.2020 itself and the subject vehicle was outside the purview of the warranty when it is reported on 04.01.2021 and cannot be bestowed with warranty benefits. Thus, there is no question of deficiency in service by the first opposite party.

25. It is apparent that the complainant is merely alleging defect in the vehicle as an afterthought as he has failed to get the warranty benefits. The complainant has alleged bald statements alleging defects in the vehicle without producing any evidence in the form of expert opinion from an appropriate laboratory as stipulated under section 38 (2) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

26. In view of the above submission made above, it is humbly prayed to this honourable Commission that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs for the interest of justice. Ex. B1 to Ex. B5 were marked by the first opposite party as part of the proof affidavit stage to substantiate their case. Ex. B1 is about the Copy of the office order dated 01.01.2022, Ex. B2 is about the Copy of the certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the name change dated 17.09.2021, Ex. B3 is about the Copy of the relevant extracts of the owner’s manual and service instructions, Ex. B4 is about the Copy of the Job card dated 04.01.2021 and the copy of the tax invoice dated 19.01.2021, Ex. B5 is about the Copy of the reply dated 03.03.2021 along with postal receipt.                                              

Brief Summary of Second Opposite party side:

27. The second opposite party in this case is The Manager, Kaveri Garage Private Limited, Trichy. It is submitted by this opposite party that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and misconceived. It is to be dismissed in limine. Expert the averments of complaint admitted by the opposite party, all averments made in the complaint are to be strictly proved by the complainant.

28. The allegation that the second opposite party did not deliver the vehicle to the complainant on the date of receipt of the price for the vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant exalting the quality of the product of the first opposite party does not reflect the correct state of facts and the apprehension raised by the complainant that there might be fault in the operation and performance of the vehicle in the backdrop of the representation of the second opposite party is nothing but a figment of imagination intentionally invented by the complainant for the purpose of raising some dispute if possible.

29. The allegation that the second opposite party told the complainant that there was a warranty for one year for the vehicle and they would set right the defects if any in the vehicle’s performance is devoid of truth.

30. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle knowing fully well about the date of expiry of the warranty for the vehicle which was clearly mentioned as 29.12.2020. The complainant brought the vehicle on 04.01.2021 with a complaint that there was starting problem. The personnel of the second opposite party received the vehicle and needed time to undertake a thorough study of the actual defects and the complainant was informed that the actual problem would be diagnosed within a day thereof.

31. As a dutiful dealer, the personnel of the second opposite party took up through investigation of the vehicle’s problem and ultimately it was found that the EGR Cooler assembly had suffered complete failure and it was assessed that the said spare parts would have to be replaced in the vehicle of the complainant.

32. The complainant was informed over phone about the problem and about the cost of the spare which is Rs. 45,126/-. The complainant was also informed that the replacement of the spare could be done on payment basis in which case he would have to incur the labour charges and other incidental service charges.

33. The complainant requested the second opposite party to replace the spare on warranty basis stating that the warranty had expired just a week back. The complainant also requested the second opposite party to try to get the concurrence of M/s. TATA Motors Limited for replacing EGR Cooler assembly on warranty basis.

34. The second opposite party also communicated the complainant’s request to the first opposite party through e-mail for which they have received reply communication dated 07.01.2021 where in the first opposite party had expressed their inability to comply with the requests made by the complainant. The matter was immediately communicated to the complainant by the second opposite party over phone.

35. The complainant was informed that the second opposite party could proceed with the replacement work on payment basis if only the complainant gave his concurrence. The complainant gave his concurrence over phone on 11.01.2021 asking the second opposite party to get along with the job on payment basis and he told the second opposite party that he would be making the entire payment towards the cost of the spare parts and service charges upon the completion of the job and at that time of taking delivery of the vehicle.

36. Immediately on the same day, when the complainant gave his concurrence, the second opposite party placed purchase order for the spare part and the spare part was received by the second opposite party on 16.11.2021 and the work was completed on 18.01.2021. The same was informed to the complainant and the complainant also effected necessary payment and took delivery of the vehicle in good condition after test drive.

37. The claim made by the complainant in this complaint is only an afterthought and an attempt to gain something by beating around the bush. There are no merits in the complaint and deserves only dismissal. This opposite party prayed this honourable commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs and thus render justice.

38. Ex. B6 to Ex. B9 were marked by the second opposite party as part of the proof affidavit stage to substantiate their case. Ex. B6 is about the Sales Invoice dated 30.12.2017, Ex. B7 is about the Job Card dated 04.01.2021, Ex. B8 is about the E-mail Communication of the second opposite party with the first opposite party dated 07.01.2021 and Ex. B9 is about the Tax Invoice dated 19.01.2021.                  

With respect to this complaint, this commission must give attention to the following points.

Point 1: How warranty coverage period for a product is calculated in India?  

Point 2: Whether any deficiency of service by the first opposite party to the complainant and if so, what relief he is entitled to?  

Point 3: Whether any deficiency of service by the second opposite party to the complainant and if so, what relief he is entitled to?  

39. To answer the above queries, this commission has gone through the Ex. A1 to Ex. A4, Ex. B1 to Ex. B9, complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, proof affidavit of the opposite parties, written and the oral arguments of the opposite parties and oral arguments of the complainant side. This commission also did a detail research on how the warranty period is arrived for the products sold in India.

40. In India, the calculation of the warranty period for products, including cars, can be influenced by various factors, including manufacturer policies and terms negotiated between the dealer and the buyer. It's important to note that specifics might vary based on the manufacturer, dealer practices, and applicable laws at the time of purchase. Manufacturer and Dealer Policies: Manufacturers and dealers can set their own policies regarding when the warranty period starts. It's not uncommon for the warranty to start either from the date of purchase (as mentioned on the sales bill) or from the date of delivery, depending on the company's policy. Sale Date vs. Delivery Date: While the sale of the car might involve generating a sales bill and payment, the warranty could still be based on the date of delivery. This is because the warranty aims to cover the period during which the consumer is actively using the product. The warranty period is typically intended to ensure that the consumer gets a certain duration of defect-free use from the product after they physically possess it. Start Date of Warranty: In India, the start date of the warranty on a product like a car is typically determined by the manufacturer or dealer, and it can be based on either the date of purchase or the date of delivery or even the date of installation of the product. This information should be explicitly mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions provided by the manufacturer or dealer.

41. On detailed analysis of the warranty period, since we have the chance to interpret in different ways, this commission is of the view that the warranty terms and conditions provided by the manufacturer or dealer in writing for purchasing the car should be binding on both the complainant as well as the Manufacturer or dealer. Accordingly point 1 is decided by this commission.   

42. On detailed analysis of the Ex. A1 to Ex. A4, there is no material provided by the complainant with respect to the manufacturing defect in the car. There is no expert evidence provided by the complainant to claim that there is some manufacturing defects in the car. Hence this commission rejected the allegation about the manufacturing defects in the car.

43. The whole issue between the complainant as well as the opposite parties lies in the warranty period for the car purchased from the second opposite party. It is an admitted fact that the car sales bill was generated on 30.12.2017 and the delivery of the car was done on 05.01.2018 which was accepted by both the complainant as well as the opposite parties. It is also admitted by the second opposite party that the car was brought to the workshop of the second opposite party on 04.01.2021 due to defect in the car. The complainant did not prove from his side that the second opposite party has admitted that the defects in the car can be repaired with the warranty coverage and there was no need for the complainant to pay for the defects rectified. No evidence present by the complainant to substantiate his claim. He also paid the amount of Rs. 46,610/- to the second opposite party to take his vehicle back after removal of the defects on 19.01.2021 as per Ex. A2.

44. On detailed analysis of the Ex. B3/ Copy of the relevant extracts of the owner’s manual and service instructions, it is clearly mentioned about the warranty policy for the HEXA car by the first opposite party. It is mentioned that “The normal vehicle warranty policy for HEXA covers uniform period of 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle / 1,00,000 KMs, whichever is earlier for all the customers irrespective of Personal / Commercial usage. Additionally, VARICOR engine fitted on the HEXA carries an engine aggregate warranty cover for 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle / 1,50,000 KMs, whichever is earlier”.     

45. As per Ex. A1 / Xerox copy of the Invoice dated 30.12.2017 for the payment of cash for the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, it is evident that the date of sale of the vehicle was on 30.12.2017 and the three years warranty period starts from that date as per the first opposite party policy which was clearly mentioned in Ex. B3. Hence the warranty period ends on 29.12.2020 for the HEXA car and at the time complainant left the car in the workshop of the second opposite party on 04.01.2021, there was no warranty coverage for the car. Hence the first opposite party was no way responsible for the allegation mentioned by the complainant about the payment of Rs. 46,610/- for the repair of the car. Also, there is no manufacturing defects proved by the complainant here. Hence there is no deficiency of service to the complainant from the first opposite party and accordingly point 2 is decided by this commission.             

46. On detailed analysis of the Ex. B8 / E-mail Communication of the second opposite party with the first opposite party dated 07.01.2021, the second opposite party has written to the first opposite party which states that “Sir, The above said HEXA vehicle belongs to MOUNT ZION MATRICULATION HR. SEC SCHOOL and had undergone regular periodic maintenance. And now EGR assembly got failed, vehicle warranty date got completed on 29.12.2020, we have received the vehicle on 04.01.2021 for service. As it’s been few days over from warranty completion date customer wants the same to be carried out under warranty”. And the first opposite party replied that “Dear Team, If customer is having extended warranty, we can carry out under extended warranty else it will not be covered as per policy.”

47. It is clear from the communication that the second opposite party has checked with the first opposite about the complainant’s request to cover the repair for the defects under the warranty and not given any blind assurance that the same would be covered under warranty. The complainant has failed to prove that the second opposite party has charged Rs. 46,610/- only after given assurance that the same would be covered under warranty coverage. On the other hand, the second opposite party verified the warranty coverage for the car to the first opposite party and carried out the repair for the defects on payment basis. Even though the communication between the complainant as well as the second opposite party through phone was not proved either by the complainant as well as the second opposite party, the payment of the bill for the repair work by the complainant on 19.01.2021 clearly showed that complainant has accepted the repair work can be done on payment basis since his warranty period for the HEXA car was expired on 29.12.2020.

48. The second opposite party has acted as per the expectation of a dealer of the first opposite party and the charge of Rs. 46,610/- was done for the repair of the defects since the HEXA vehicle warranty period expired on 29.12.2020 itself and they have acted as per the warranty policy.        

49. The complainant has a responsibility to read and understand the terms of the warranty provided by the dealer or manufacturer. This includes knowing the exact start and end dates of the warranty coverage. If the complainant assumed the warranty was valid without verifying the dates, then he is responsible for the consequences for the assumptions he made. The dealer/ second opposite party also has a responsibility to clearly communicate the warranty terms to the complainant, including when the warranty period begins and ends. If the dealer/ second opposite party provided incorrect information or misled the complainant about the warranty coverage, then they might bear some responsibility. In our case, the second opposite party has verified the first opposite party about the request from the complainant to carry out the repair for the defects under the warranty itself and the mail communication Ex. B8 clearly showed that the complainant was aware of the warranty period end date. Hence there is no point in shifting the blame on the second opposite party. Hence from this commission perspective, there is no deficiency of service to the complainant by the second opposite party and accordingly point 3 is decided by this commission.                           

As a result, the allegation against the first opposite party and the second opposite party was not valid and not proved by the complainant with relevant materials, this complaint is dismissed with no costs.

ORDERS RENDERED BY

Thiru A. Alagesan, Member 2: (Sd******)

FOR CONSIDERATION:

(Sd*******)                                                                                                                                         (Sd******)

PRESIDENT:                                                                                                                                          MEMBER 1:  

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY

The above order, manually typewritten in the laptop by Member II and corrections carried out by Member II and pronounced in open court by the Commission on 31.08.2023.  

 (Sd*******)                                                (Sd*******)                                                          (Sd*******)

 MEMBER 2:                                                  MEMBER 1:                                                          PRESIDENT: