State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ppopular Services Ltd vs Sumesh V.B on 11 May, 2016
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NOS.494/2014 & 503/2014 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 11/5/2016 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.424/2012 dt 31/03/2014 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam) PRESENT: SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPEAL NO.494/2014 APPELLANT: M/s. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Maruti True Value, Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam, Kochi-682 025 Rep: by Manager Goldy Thomas, D/o Thomas. (By Adv: S. Reghukumar) Vs RESPONDENTS: Sumesh V.B., S/o. V.K. Bhaskaran, Vengatt House, 10/154, Winners Road, South Chittoor, Kochi-682 027. (By Adv: G. Udayabhanu) Managing Director, M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasnt Kunj, New Delhi-110 070. General Manager, Sales Support, M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasnt Kunj, New Delhi-110 070. Regional Manager (Sales Support), M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., India Vision Building, Bye pass road, Palarivattom, Kochi-24. APPEAL NO.503/2014 APPELLANTS: Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Limted. General Manager - Sales Support, Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Both at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, ew Delhi-110070. Regional Manager (Sales Support), Maruti Suzuki India Limited, India Vision Building, Bye-Pass Road, Palarivattom, Kochi-682 024. (By Advs: V. Santharam & Deepesh.A.S) Vs RESPONDENTS: Sumesh V.B., S/o. V.K. Bhaskaran, Vengatta House, 10/154, Winners Road, South Chitoor, Kochi-682 027. (By R1 Adv: G. Udayabhanu) Popular Vehicles & Services Limited, Maruti True Value, Near Kattukaran Center, Mamangalm, Kochi-682 025. (Rep: by the Manager) (By R2 Adv: S. Reghukumar) COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 11/5/2016 SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Both these appeals arise out of the order passed in C.C. No.424/2012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam wherein the Forum Below partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 11/2/2012 the complainant purchased a pre-owned Maruti Omni vehicle from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. A loan for Rs.50,000/- was availed from financiers to be repaid in 36 equal instalments @ Rs.1,825/- p.m. The purpose of purchasing the vehicle was that the complainant's father was very sick and had to be taken to the Hospital often. The father of the complainant was a diabetic patient whose right foot was amputed and it was highly necessary to have a vehicle for taking him to the Hospital. Three days after the delivery of the vehicle the vehicle stopped abruptly. Thereafter several times the vehicle had defects and had to tow the vehicle to the workshop. The complainant had to suffer bitter experiences from the opposite party and no job cards issued to the complainant against the repairs. It has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the vehicle belongs to one Ms. Jasmin who returned the vehicle to the opposite party on finding manufacturing defects. Concealing the fact that the vehicle was defective, the 1st opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice and sold the vehicle in true value claiming that vehicle is in good and excellent condition. The complaint is filed to get refund of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 18% and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The 1st opposite party resisted the allegations in the version contending that the true value pre-owned cars offered for sale after exhibiting it in the display and offers were for one year or 15000 kms warranty, accident free vehicles, renovated after 120 point checks, 3 free services and certified by Maruti Engineers. It is admitted that the vehicle price was fixed and exhibited as Rs.1,55,000/-. The car supplied to the complainant is free from defects and was in good condition. As per the service history of the vehicle the complainant brought the vehicle on 11/5/2012 at 34078 kms for 1st free service. The entire satisfaction was marked by the complainant and took delivery of the vehicle after test drive. As per job card No.JC-12003165 the vehicle was brought on 26/5/2012 at 34204 kms. On 3/7/2012 34481 kms the complainant brought the vehicle for running repair. Every time after the service the complainant took the vehicle endorsing satisfaction of service. The certification of complainant's vehicle was done by the service engineer of the 1st opposite party and the averments of defects contrary is denied. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The written statement filed by opposite parties 2 to 4 states that the liability of these opposite parties had already set out under the warranty policy. The complaint is bad for mis-jointer of party. The vehicle in question comes under GR category and is undoubtedly defect-free and in perfect road worthy condition. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected before delivery to the complainant. The complaint is filed with malafide intension to extract money on false allegations. The complaint is merely based on exaggerations and as per the warranty policy the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. These opposite parties ensured quality by inspecting the entire process under 120 point check up. Further the pre-owned vehicles should thoroughly be checked by the evaluator of the dealer. At the time of sale the delivery receipt, delivery check list and buyer feedback form are filled up and returned to the opposite party. No complaint or defect pointed out by the complainant. The complainant had not approached the Forum Below with clean hands and filed this complaint. The opposite parties fulfilled their obligations under warranty as and when the vehicle presented for servicing. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
5. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exbts: A1 to A9 were marked. On the part of opposite parties DW's 1 to 3 were examined and Exbts: B1 to B7 were marked.
6. The appellant in A-494/14 is the dealer from whom the pre-owned Maruti Omni was purchased by the respondent. The pre-owned cars are certified by the service engineer of the appellant and issue warranty for one year or 15000 kms. Exbt: A7 is the warranty which was given at the time of purchase of the vehicle to the respondent. The respondent alleges manufacturing defect. While alleging manufacturing defect it is to be proved by the respondent. In this case no expert examined the vehicle and had not complied Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant is liable to rectify the alleged defects during the warranty period which was clearly complied by the appellants. There is no case for the respondent that the appellant had not rectified the defects in time. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st appellant. As per warranty the defects pointed out were rectified and at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle the respondent endorsed the satisfaction. It is pertinent to point out that it was clearly informed to the complainant that the pre-owned vehicle has only warranty for one year and as per terms and conditions the defects were rectified satisfactorily. Hence no compensation is allowable to the complainant as ordered by the Forum Below.
7. The appellants in A-503/14 submitted that the pre-owned vehicles are presented for sale only after 120 point check and after revaluation by the service engineer of the appellants. The price of the vehicle will be displayed in the car and after test drive only the vehicle was purchased by the respondent. The appellants are issuing the warranty which is limited to one year and all the defects were rectified as per the terms and conditions of the warranty period. It is submitted that only after evaluation and full checkup the pre-owned vehicles displayed for sale. It is specifically mentioned that 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti and warranty is given in compliance of the specific instructions as per the owner's manual. All the defects were rectified in the workshop of the appellants and the vehicles would be examined by qualified mechanical engineering holders who were appointed as evaluators by the appellants. Exbt: A7 is the certificate issued by the appellant. There is a uniform procedure all over India for the appellants to conduct the examination of vehicles put in pre-owned category. It is specifically deposed no customer and general public are allowed to enter inside the workshop of the appellants. Moreover in this case the respondent had not taken out any expert opinion with regard to the defects of the vehicle. In the absence of any expert evidence under section 13(1)(c) no manufacturing defects can be alleged by the respondent and it is strictly limited to the terms and conditions of warranty.
8. The respondent appeared in person and filed the counter.
9. Heard in detail. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent purchased a pre-owned Maruti Omni vehicle from the appellants. The vehicle was having one year or 15000 kms warranty. During the time of warranty several defects occurred which was rectified by the appellants. It is alleged in the complaint that the vehicle owned by pre-owner sold the vehicle due to manufacturing defect. We would like to point out that this was not proved by the respondent specifically. The complainant's allegation is with regard to the manufacturing defects. It is mandatory to appoint expert to examine the vehicle under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act which is absent in this case. Hence the manufacturing defect cannot be approved by the Forum Below and allow to refund the price of the vehicle. It is settled law that the manufacturing defect is to be proved to replace the vehicle or refund the value of the vehicle. In the instant case the vehicle was having recurring defects which was already rectified by the appellants.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NOS.494/2014
& 503/2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
DATED 11/5/2016
Sa.