G SIVAKUMAR Vs. T V SUNDERAM IYENGAR & SONS
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-11-1
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 20,2010

G Sivakumar Appellant
VERSUS
T V Sunderam Iyengar And Sons Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) COMPLAINT filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The case of the complainants is as follows: First complainant is the son of the second complainant. The first complainant purchased a vehicle by name Mahindra Armada Grand manufactured by second opposite party Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. The vehicle was purchased from the first opposite party T.V. Sunderam Iyengar and Sons Ltd., the dealer of the vehicles manufactured by the second opposite party. The said vehicle was purchased by the first complainant with the financial assistance rendered by the 3rd opposite party Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The vehicle was purchased for the use of the same by the second complainant, the father of the first complainant. The first complainant purchased the vehicle Mahindra Armada Grand on 27.3.2000, He was attracted by the advertisements made by the second opposite party. The said vehicle was purchased on a consideration of Rs. 5,20,000. It was registered with Reg. No. KL 01 R 1897. The second complainant used the vehicle for his purposes with the approval of the first complainant. But, the said vehicle caused much hardships and inconveniences to the second complainant because of repeated breakdowns. The vehicle was taken to the first opposite party for effecting repairs. But the repairs could not improve the condition of the vehicle. The vehicle continued to breakdown again and again. The second opposite party manufacturer had given warranty for the vehicle; but even during warranty period the vehicle developed problems resulted in repeated breakdowns. The vehicle was having inherent manufacturing defect. The second opposite party ceased to manufacture the said model of vehicle due to problems developed by the said model of vehicles. The opposite parties 1 and 2 adopted unfair trade practice in selling a defective vehicle. The second complainant returned the vehicle to the first opposite party in May 2001 and informed them that the complainants do not wish to get back the said vehicle. The 3rd opposite party who financed the car insisted for repayment of the loan amount. As per the terms of the agreement entered into between the complainants and the 3rd opposite party, the complainants are hirers of the vehicle under a hire purchase agreement The 3rd opposite party is an alter ego of the second opposite party. The 3rd opposite party does not propose to repossess the vehicle. But the 3d opposite party is harassing the complainants with demands for money. Thus, the complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have also claimed an alternative relief to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to discharge the amounts claimed by the 3rd opposite party towards the amounts due as per hire purchase agreement and to allow the complainants to realize Rs. 5,00,000 from opposite parties 1 and 2. They also claimed cost of the proceedings.
(2.) THE first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending as follows: The first opposite party is the authorized dealer for vehicles manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. The first complainant purchased the vehicle on 27.3.2000. The second opposite party provided warranty for the said vehicle. The purchaser is bound to use the vehicle as per the guidelines of the manufacturer. The said vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainants. There was no repeated breakdowns of the vehicle as alleged. The complainant has enjoyed the benefit of warranty given by the manufacturer. The first opposite party promptly attended the complaints preferred by the complainant. The complainants have taken back the vehicle after repairs with their full satisfaction. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The first opposite party has no sort of connection with the 3rd opposite party. The first opposite party being the dealer cannot take back the vehicle once sold. The complainants used the vehicle for a considerable period. The complainants left the vehicle at the premises of the first opposite party for effecting repairs. The complainants were informed about the completion of repair works and they were requested to take back the vehicle. But the complainants were not prepared to take back the vehicle and thereby inconvenience has been caused to the first opposite party. The vehicle is occupying very valuable commercial area in the premises of the first opposite party. The complainants are liable to pay Rs. 30 per day for unnecessarily keeping the vehicle in the premises of the first opposite party. They are bound to pay garage charge at the rate of Rs. 30 per day from 26.6.2001. The complainants are at liberty to take back the vehicle, which is kept in the premises of the first opposite party. The complainants are not entitled to get any compensation or any other relief in this case.
(3.) THE second opposite party filed written version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The first complainant did not inform about the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the second complainant. Therefore, the warranty given by the second opposite party has become invalid. The vehicle purchased by the first complainant was not having any manufacturing defect. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of second opposite party. The first opposite party is the authorized dealer of the second opposite party and the transaction between opposite parties 1 and 2 is that of a principal -to -principal basis. The second opposite party has no privity of contract with the complainants. The 3rd opposite party is a separate legal entity. The second opposite party has no connection with the 3rd opposite party with respect to the transaction entered into between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. The allegation that there occurred repeated breakdowns of the vehicle is not correct. The first opposite party being the dealer of the vehicle repaired the vehicle with full satisfaction of the complainants. There is no inherent manufacturing defect or other defect for the vehicle, which was purchased by the first complainant. The second opposite party brings out new models of vehicles upon further researches and developments. The allegation that the manufacturing of the vehicle was stopped due to complaints is not true or correct. The complainants refused to take delivery of the vehicle from the first opposite party who effected repairs to the vehicle The complaint was filed to get a new model vehicle or cause unlawful enrichment after utilizing the vehicle for a substantial period / kilometres. The present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is filed with a view to secure unlawful enrichment by harassing the opposite parties. The second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs. The 3rd opposite party filed written version contending as follows: The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the 3rd opposite party. The complainant availed financial assistance from the 3rd opposite party by executing a hire purchase agreement. The complainant is not a consumer as described in Section 2(l)(d) of the CP Act, 1986. The complainant is only a hirer and that the 3rd opposite party is the owner of the vehicle. The complaint filed against the 3rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed. The name of the 3rd opposite party should be deleted from the present complaint. The 3rd opposite party financed Rs. 3,75,000 with a total value of Rs.4,74,660. The complainants agreed to repay the said amount by monthly instalments of Rs.13,185 within a period of 36 months. The complainants defaulted in paying the monthly instalments. They paid only 13 instalments and that 14 instalments are still outstanding to the tune of Rs. 1,81,590. The 3rd opposite party is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,27,384 including delay charges of Rs. 43,194. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief against the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party need not recover the amounts from opposite parties 1 and 2. It has no connection with opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the hire purchase agreement. Thus, the 3rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against them.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.