DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
Date of filing : 16/1/2019
CC/11/2019
Gangadharan P.,
S/o. Ponnuchami,
Karakkottupura House,
Thekkekunnam, Kottekkad,
Palakkad – 678 732
(By Adv.C.Sreekumar) - Complainant
Vs
1.Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area,
Bidali P.O. Ramanagara District,
Karnataka – 562 109
Rep.by
Manager, Customer Service Division
2.Amana Toyota, VPK Service Division
Rep.by the Manager,
NH-213, Mundur PO,
Poriyani, Palakkad – 678 592 - Opposite parties
(O.P.1 by Adv. K.N.Somakumar;
O.P.2 Adv. A.A.Abdulla)
O R D E R
(In preliminary issue)
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- The complainant purchased a car manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party. Under the terms and conditions of warranty the 2nd opposite party undertook to render 3 years warranty from the date of delivery i.e. from 4/1/2016. On 31/12/2018 the complainant took the vehicle to the yard of the 2nd opposite party for services. The car was suffering from some minor damages that required rectification under the warranty cover. To the sudden surprise of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the warranty cover was over by 30/12/2018 and that the complainant had to expend between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for rectification of the defect.
The complainant also pleaded that the car has suffered from various other defects due to the inability of the opposite party to repair the car within the reasonable time and sought for compensation and other reliefs.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and contested the claim of the complainant that the date of delivery was 4/1/2016. The opposite party contended that the car was delivered on 30/12/2015 and hence the warranty extended only upto 29/12/2018.
3. Crux of the debate lies in the answer to the question “which is the correct date of delivery, 30/12/2015 or 4/1/2016 ?”
4. Since answer to this query would simplify the future conduct and course of the dispute, this Commission had on 12/10/2021 passed orders to hear on the date of delivery and posted the matter to 27/11/2021. On that day both parties represented and sought time for hearing. The matter was again called on 4/1/2022 on which date the complainant sought time for hearing. The case was called on 21/2/2022. When the matter was called the parties sought time for hearing but as there was not much of materials or facts to be argued upon, this Commission directed the counsel to hear the matter. At this juncture the opposite parties sought time for production of documents which request was denied by this Commission as the parties were provided enough opportunities to produce documents and argue upon the case.
5. Though not marked, the 1st document produced by the complainant is a warranty registration card (Customer Record). Authenticity of the same is not disputed by the opposite parties. Their only case is that the delivery note in their possession show that the date of delivery is 30/12/2015. The warranty registration card submitted by the complainant shows the date of delivery as 4/1/2016. The dealers name and address is affixed in the same by way of a seal. The warranty is provided by the 1st opposite party.
6. We are of the opinion that the opposite parties are hesitant in producing the delivery note since production of the same would be harmful to their case. Even if the opposite parties produce a delivery note showing the date to be 30/12/2015 it would not serve their purpose since the warranty registration card is issued showing the date of delivery as 4/1/2016. One cannot but wonder why such a delivery date is made in the registration card. A perusal of this record would show that the dates written are clear, unambiguous and without any corrections whatsoever. Hence, it is only natural that we come to a conclusion that the 2nd opposite party had for the purpose of granting cover to the complainant’s car under the warranty chosen 4/1/2016 as the cut off date and they are estopped from raising any plea to the contra.
7. An agreement of sale and a warranty agreement are entirely two different contracts. Warranty may be seen as an add-on agreement following a sale agreement. For a sale agreement, the date of delivery is very important. For an agreement of warranty, though the date of delivery is important, the manufacturer / dealer is at liberty to choose any other date as the date of initiation of the period of warranty.
Hence, even if the actual date of delivery be 30/12/2015 as claimed by opposite parties, it is not mandatory that the date of actual delivery MUST BE the date of warranty. The only requisite is that the manufacturer is providing a cover to the complainant’s car under an agreement from a date specified till a subsequent specified date. Here since two options are available as dates of delivery, we resort to availing the date on warranty agreement. Furthermore it seems to be logical as law dictates that when there is ambiguity as to two options of interpretations available, the option that is beneficial to the parties who did not frame the contract has to be resorted to, i.e. the principle of Contra Proferantum.
8. Hence, we hold that the date of delivery for the purpose of providing warranty cover to the complainant’s car to be 4/1/2016.
9. In view of the finding in preliminary issue we hold that the complainant is entitled to the benefits of warranty for repair carried out on 31/12/2018.
10. Consequently we allow the complaint with the following directions.
1. The complainant is entitled to have the repairs carried out on 31/12/2018 under
the warranty, subject to the terms and conditions therein. In case the said bill is
paid, the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the said sum paid as repair
charges, with interest @10% from the date of payment till date of return.
2. The complainant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- as compensation.
3. Complainant is entitled to get a cost of Rs.10,000/-
4. The opposite parties shall comply with this order by way of payment of the
aforesaid amounts within 45 days from date receipt of copy a this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of March, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V.
President
Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
