State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Syed Saleem, S/O. Syed Aziz, Adlabad ... vs M/S. Venkateshwara Automotive,, ... on 3 April, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 116 of 2012 against CC 55/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between : Mr.Syed Saleem, S/o. Syed Aziz, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Owner of Auto bearing No. AP.01.V.7410 R/o. Madina Colony, Nirmal, Dist: Adilabad. .. Appellant/ Complainant AND M/s. Venkateshwara Automotive, 11-1-1803, Maruthi Nagar Colony, Beside Laxmi Kalyana Mandapam, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad-503 003(AP) represented by its Manger. Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Vakkanti Narasimha Rao Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Abhay Singh Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Wednesday, the Third day of April Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 29.12.2011 in CC 55/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased the Force Auto bearing registration No. AP.01.V.7410 on 30-01-2008 for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from opposite party by obtaining loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, branch Nirmal with warranty of 6 months warranty. From the beginning of its purchase it started giving trouble and on several occasions it was repaired by the opposite party but the defect could not be rectified and hence he got issued legal notice on 22-09-2009 to the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.4,94,366/- towards the expenses incurred by him. After receipt of the said notice the opposite party got fitted the Auto with new engine. But the auto developed same problem and the complainant paid Rs.18,000/-towards repair of the Auto as demanded by the opposite party. On 17-07-2010 when the Auto developed problems the complainant took it to the opposite partys workshop and they demanded Rs. 22,000/- towards the repair charges. Vexed with the frequent problems the complainant left the Auto in the workshop of the opposite party. The said lapses on the part of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and hence he filed the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,35,000/-towards costs of the defect vehicle with interest and Rs.4,12,366/- towards damages, expenses and compensation with costs.
3. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under : The Auto which was purchased from them by the complainant was brought to their workshop for the first time on 05-03-2008 for first free service and they changed only engine oil and general checking was done free of cost but no complaints were made. There is no defect in the engine as alleged and the allegation that it was kept for repairs for 10 days at Nanded is not true. For the Second time the Auto was brought to the work shop on 10.03.2008 with complaint engine. Which was due to heat as the complainant did not maintain proper water in radiator and that on count of heat complications in the engine arose. No charges were levied as all the parts were replaced under warranty and no labour charges were collected. At that time the meter reading was 6,467 kms. In the second service dt. 19-04-2008 there were no complaints, oil filters were changed and at the time the meter reading was 11,832kms. On the third service dt. 15-05-2008 there were no complaints and oil was changed and the meter reading was 19,199kms. The vehicle was brought on 11-07-2008 after it met with an accident and there was extensive damage and the opposite party gave estimation for the repairs. The complainant did not give his consent for the repairs and kept vehicle with the opposite party. On 28-07-2008 the complainant took the vehicle without getting the vehicle repaired stating that he would get the vehicle repaired outside for lesser cost. At that time meter reading was 32,881kms. Again the vehicle was brought to the opposite partys workshop on 09-06-2009 with a complaint of engine not starting. The vehicle was checked and it was found that the engine was seized. The vehicle was repaired and three major parts were replaced under good will warranty on free of cost and that on the advice of the manufacturer, spare parts and outside labour charges were collected and the vehicle was delivered on 07-07-2009. The mileage at that time was 18,891 kms which indicates that there was tampering of milo meter reading. On 08-05-2010 the vehicle was brought with a complaint of engine not working. The vehicle was repaired within three days but the complainant did not take vehicle expressing shortage of funds to clear the bills. The complainant took the vehicle on 10-06-2010 after paying the bills. Again the vehicle was brought on 29-06-2010 with a complaint of vehicle off in running. On checking the vehicle it was found that the vehicle had hydrostatic lock of engine due to ingress of water from air intake system due to damage free cleaner assembly pipe(accident damage) and the mechanic assessed the cost of repairs at Rs.15,000/- which the complainant claimed under warranty but the opposite party refused on the ground that the period of the warranty was over by the time and the problem also does not cover under warranty and once vehicle met with an accident warranty does not cover. Thereafter, the complainant left the vehicle in the garage and filed this false complaint to have wrongful gain and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A28 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B8 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint directing the complainant to take back his Auto bearing No. AP.01.V.7410 in as it is condition when it kept for repair from opposite party workshop and also opposite party is directed to hand over the said Auto without collecting any charges from the complainant
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see the admitted defects and problems under Ex.B2 to B8 by the opposite party , such as, Body complaints under Ex. B4 dated 15.05.2008 and that the Body touched the Tire after the vehicle is loaded and also about the Engine starting problem shown in Ex. B3 dated 10.03.2008 within the warranty period and that the opposite party did not disclose the reasons for causing troubles and defects occurred in the vehicle frequently anywhere in the Job Cards and that the OP failed to establish about the accident to the vehicle with cogent evidence and that the problem, vehicle not started under Ex. B6 is being continuing since its warranty period which is admitted under Ex. B2 Job Card dated 10.03.2008 and thus prayed to allow the complaint by allowing the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable?
9. There is no dispute that the Complainant purchased the Force Auto bearing registration No. AP.01.V.7410 on 30-01-2008 for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from opposite party with warranty of 6 months. According to the complainant, the said Auto was defective from the beginning of its purchase and problems arose very frequently even after repairs and change of the engine thrice and the OP denied the said aspect and marked Ex. B1 to B8 job cards showing that the vehicle was repaired whenever it was brought with complaint to their garage. Further the Ops contended that the complainant failed to take back the repaired vehicle in time on the pretext that he was short of funds to pay the repair bills and that the vehicle was repaired free of cost within warranty period ie on 5.3.2008, 19.4.2008 and 15.5.2008. Admittedly the complainant did not make manufacturer of the Auto as a party to the proceedings and it appears that the OP is only a dealer who sold the vehicle. Ex, B1 to B4 disclose that within the warranty period on every visit normal services were done to the vehicle. On account of passage of time in using the vehicle some problems are likely to occur after the warranty period. There is no expert opinion or evidence that there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The O.P. specifically contended that on 11.7.2008 the vehicle was brought after it met with an accident and there was an extensive damage and that estimation for repairs was given on that date but the complainant did not give his consent for repairs . Possibility of vehicle meeting with an accident cannot be ruled out. As per terms and conditions of warranty ( 27 ) the warranty does not apply to the vehicle or parts thereof if it is due to accident. By 28-07-2008 the meter reading was 32,881 kms and with such reading one can easily understand that the vehicle was extensively used and on account of it there is every possibility of wear and tear. It was also contended by the OP that Milo meter reading was tampered and the same has not been controverted specifically. Merely because Ex B3 dt. 10.03.2008 there is mention about the engine starting problem it does not mean that it was a manufacturing defect. In the circumstances of the case, the District Forum while dismissing the complaint gave direction to the complainant to take back his Auto and similarly a direction was given to OP to hand over the Auto without collecting any charges from the complainant which is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There is no order as to costs in the Appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 03.04.2013.