Complaint filed on: 29.11.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 01.07.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.2655/2013

DATED THIS THE 01^st JULY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.N.V.Vijay

s/o Late N.S.Veerabhadraiah

Aged about 35 years

Residing at No.11, 1^st cross,

Judicial Officer’s Layout

Sanjaynagar

Bengaluru-560094

By Advocates M/s.Lexaxis     

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Trident Automobiles (P) ltd.,

No.130, 1^st Main Road,

Sheshadripuram,

Bengaluru-560020

Rep.by its Manager

Sri.Syed Waris Pasha

By Advocates  

M/s. Kruthine Law Chambers

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party in repairing  and servicing of  his Hyundai Verna car KA 04 ME 2429 and thereby has claimed the reliefs of:

1. getting refund of Rs.1,10,479/-
2. with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and
3. Cost of notice Rs.10,000/-

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being the RC owner of “Hyundai Verna KA 04 ME 2429 Car” of 2007 model, being the regular customer of Opposite party, gave the car for service on 21.02.13 with an instruction of changing the coolant and top up the coolant. On 22.02.13 he got the car back on payment of Rs.15,137/- after the Opposite party reported the compliance of his direction. As per the tax invoice Opposite party had filled up 2 liters of coolant to his car. He drove his car less than 1000 km and found air conditioner was not working and immediately he called the service adviser Sri.Venkatesh on 15.03.13 and got the information from him that AC gas could have been emptied. On 16.03.13 he was travelling in the said car towards Mysuru with family members and it was stopped suddenly at Madduru after the smoke started coming out from the engine. Hence he called the said advisor Venkatesh. As the call was diverted to service centre, later got the car towed by towing vehicle on payment of Rs.4,000/-. On 18.03.13 one Sri.Chethan of Opposite party examined and informed that vehicle was low on coolant and hence it was stopped and he also made him to wait till the return of Venkatesh who was on leave. On 20.03.13, Venkatesh informed that vehicle was ceased and head engine had to be opened to verify the extent of damage. On 21.03.13 he visited the service center and one Sri.Waris, service manager informed him that it would be rectified with minimum cost, without being able to explain where the leakage was, though admitted no leakage anywhere from the radiator.  Though he visited the service center every alternative day, Opposite party took one month to report that the subsequential damage to the head of the engine was due to overheat as coolant level was low and the engine head had to be replaced and demanded Rs.50,000/- as advance. Since the vehicle was in the Opposite party service center for 2 months, without any alternative, he deposited and got the vehicle back on payment of Rs.1,10,479/-. The said repair work is because of the deficiency of service and negligence of the Opposite party in not taking proper care in verifying whether they changed/top up the engine coolant. When he disputed about the latches on their part, Opposite party reduced Rs.20,000/- and the said facts are itself sufficient to show the fault on its part. The Opposite party had failed to fill coolant of 2 liters as mentioned in the tax invoice and no explanation was given for low level of coolant which became the reason for causing damages to the engine.  Hence the notice was issued on 16.07.13 for which no reply was received. Hence this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party has contended that the Complainant has suppressed the true facts and filed this case on false, frivolous grounds. On 21.02.13 when the mileage was reading as 90209 kms, it has generated repair work inclusive of the replacement of the coolant and other fluids top up. On 15.03.13 about the complaint of air conditioner, their service engineer advised to bring the car for inspection but the Complainant did not report.  On 16.03.13 the car was taken to Mysuru knowingly well that it has some problem in AC and it shows that the negligence of the Complainant in not observing warning lights, indicators, temperature gauges etc., On 17.03.13 by getting the said car in towing condition to their showroom noted the meter reading 96144 kms and taken for further action. The preliminary inspection showed the low level of coolant and due to lack of cooling engine has certain internal damages. It was found necessary to dismantle the engine to know the extent of the damages and informed him on 20.03.13 for which the Complainant approved the work order by putting his signature. The service manager explained the status of the car on 21.03.13 that there was no sign of coolant leakage of external components and at the same time coolant level found to be very very less and due to which engine has suffered internal damages. It was also informed the Complainant that in the absence of the coolant it was not possible for the car to cover even the small distance as the engine will get heated resulting in consequential failures and extensive damages.  Such extensive damages were found when it was noticed after dismantle of the engine. Coolant seepage in exhaust is possible if there is any hairline crack in aluminum alloy cylinder head and every possibility of hairline crack development due to engine overheating for any reason and it is not possible to detect this kind of leakage visually, in order to confirm the same cylinder head had to be sent to machine shop for the pressure test and in this test they came to know the crack has developed internally which has come in contact of coolant jet passage.  The Complainant has driven the alleged car without coolant oil resulting overheat of engine and the consequentially resulted internal crack in the aluminum alloy of the engine. The cylinder head being the costly component, in order to place the order, advance of Rs.50,000/- was taken and after the repair work was completed as a good gesture as the Complainant is regular customer, approximate discount of Rs.11,000/- was shown before delivering the car. The car travelled a distance of 96144 kms till engine was ceased and it shows from the service rendered from the beginning till then. There is no deficiency on their part. They are not liable to pay any amount. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          4. The Complainant and the official of the Opposite party filed their respective affidavit evidences and have relied on Ex-A1 to A6 and Ex-B1 & B2 documents respectively. Written arguments were filed by both side.  Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite party in repairing and servicing his Hyundai Verna car KA 04 ME 2429 ?  
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: Admittedly the Complainant Sri.N.V.Vijay purchased the “Hyundai Verna car KA 04 ME 2429” from the Opposite party dealer in 2007 and became its regular customer. He used to consult the chief service advisor Sri.Venkatesh of Opposite party regarding the car problems whenever arise.

8. The said car had covered distance exceeding 90,000 kms in about February 2013. He had given his car for regular paid service on 21.02.13 as supported by Ex-A1/repair order and on the next day after attending to the regular paid service it was returned to him with tax invoice/Ex-A2/B1 dtd.22.02.13 for Rs.15,137/-. In the annexed sheet of Ex-A2 at serial no.6 there is mentioning of Hyundai coolant worth Rs.410.45 as the items along with other fluids used for the car and the said sheet is not annexed with Ex-B2.

          9. The said vehicle was taken by towing on 18.03.13 to Opposite party for attending to the starting problem as per repair order copy Ex-A3. On 26.03.13 the Opposite party received Rs.50,000/- as advance towards purchasing of items to be replaced. On 29.05.13 the Opposite party repaired the car and issued the bill Ex-A5/B2 for Rs.1,10,479/-.

          10. The Complainant sent the legal notice Ex-A6 dtd.16.07.13 alleging that after filling up of 2 liters of coolant on 22.02.13, the air conditioner problem was noticed before travelling of about 1000 kms and then also Venkatesh advising about emptying of the gas informed him to continue the running of the vehicle. On 15.03.13 when he was driving the said car from Bengaluru to Mysuru, it was suddenly stopped at Madduru which made him to tow the car to the Opposite party service center. On 18.03.13 he learnt that because of low level of coolant, his car engine was ceased which made the workshop to open the engine and then also it was informed no leakage of coolant from the external parts of the system. Such being the case the filling up of 2 liters of coolant in February 2013 became falsified because of which only, his car engine was badly damaged to the extent of getting repaired it at the cost of Rs.1,10,479/- and thereby he is entitled to claim back the same and the damages worth Rs.3,20,479/-.

          11. On the basis of the above, it can be stated that the Complainant has been alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite party service station. His allegations are that (a) not filled 2 liters of coolant though mentioned in Ex-A2/B1 bill dtd.22.02.13 (b) service advisor of the Opposite party when informed about the non-working of air conditioner of the car informed that there was no problem and wrongly advised him to continue to run the vehicle (c) on 21.03.13 after inspection of his towed car though stated about no sign of coolant leakage on external components and the low level of coolant, made it inevitable to dismantle the engine to carry out the inspection of failed components resulted in replacement of cylinder head at the cost of about Rs.1,10,000/-.

          12. The above allegations at the outset itself seek explanations from the Opposite party. The Opposite party has contended/deposed that when the car came for usual regular service, it had covered the distance of 94902 kms as shown in Ex-A2/B1 bill dtd.22.02.13 and it covered the distance of 96144 kms in 20 days when it was brought by towing to their service station on 15.03.13 which shows that it had covered more than 1242 kms from 22.02.13 i.e. nearly 62 kms per day.

          13. The Opposite party further stated that no sign of coolant leakage on external components was found though its level was shown very less on 18.03.13 which makes the engine to suffer internal damages and thereby by taking the consent of the Complainant, car engine was dismantled and also subjected it for pressure test and then only from the said test they came to know the existence of small hairline crack in aluminum alloy cylinder head which developed internally and came in to contact with coolant jet passage.

14. The identification of the said possibility and existence made them to suggest for changing of aluminum alloy cylinder head which is a costly component usually which cannot be stored in their regular stock and hence by receiving Rs.50,000/- towards the portion of its cost placed the orders and later replaced with old one.

15. The above explanations are supported by advance payment and finalization of the bill and also as averred in the pleadings. The coolant acts as agent to reduce the heat generated in the engine while running and in this car there was no problem from 2007 till March 2013.

          16. On 22.02.13 while doing regular service 2 liters of coolant with other fluids was filled up in the said car and thereafter the said car covered 1242 kms. That means there was the coolant supply without which the car cannot ply smoothly during the said 20 days period. The coverage of 96000 kms show efficiency of the aluminum alloy cylinder which connects with the coolant jet and the hairline crack developed internally cannot be noticed by checking the components externally. Filling up of 2 liters coolant on 22.02.13 and low level of coolant within 20 days after coverage of 1242 kms made the Opposite party to inspect the engine by dismantling the same and accordingly with consent they did the same and during pressure test learnt and saw the hairline crack developed inside the component.

          17. It is not the case of the Complainant that the hairline crack was apparent externally or that the hairline crack developed internally can be assessed without opening the engine components and without undergoing the pressure test or that the Opposite party was aware about the existence of the said hairline crack in February/March 2013 itself before the engine was ceased. The Complainant has not placed any materials to show that service advisor Venkatesh had advised him to run the car with the advice that there was no problem on 15.03.13. The problem of not working of air conditioner may be because of want of gas or any other problem but not connected with the coolant. There is no evidence/material to connect the working of the coolant and the AC. The contention of the Opposite party that in response to the problem of AC not working, service engineer had advised to get the car for inspection and it was not complied on 15.03.13 is remained as counter allegation. The said allegation and counter allegations are remained as oral allegations and are not proved before the forum.

          18. Driving the car from Bengaluru to Mysuru needs the attention towards warning lights, indicators, temperature gauges of the said car and it is not the case of the Complainant that such signals also did not work. The Complainant could have responded and attended to the said signals or to the filling up of AC gas. In the absence of compliances towards the signals and requirements, the Opposite party cannot be held responsible and there is no role of the Opposite party in the said system. The leakage of coolant during the period of any of 20 days till 15.03.13 because of development of internal hairline crack in the aluminum alloy cylinder, noticed under pressure test cannot be considered as their deficiency in service. Replacement of aluminum alloy cylinder which is a costly component also cannot be considered as occurred due to latches on the part of Opposite party, in the absence of production of the said car for inspection on 15.03.13. The opinion given for AC working cannot be connected to the alleged internal hairline crack and thereby Opposite party cannot be held responsible for the consequences for the cease of the car engine. The Complainant could have taken the report from the expert so as to go against the defence taken by the Opposite party. The available materials are not sufficient to disbelieve the explanation given by the Opposite party.

19. Admittedly the Complainant is a regular customer of the Opposite party from the date of purchase of the car in 2007 till 2013 continuously and thereby the contention of the Opposite party that the discount of Rs.11,000/- was shown in the bill considering the said relationship cannot be considered as the admission of latches on the part of the Opposite party and also as unusual in the business circle. In the result the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite party and accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the negative.           

          20. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.2655/2013 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 01^st July of 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s