ABRAHAM P. SAM Vs. BENZ MOTORS
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-10-7
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 18,2010

Abraham P. Sam Appellant
VERSUS
Benz Motors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.) COMPLAINT filed for getting replacement of the vehicle or to get refund of cost of the vehicle with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost.
(2.) THE case of the complainant is as follows: - Complainant is an Orthopedic surgeon by profession. He purchased a Tata Indica Passenger Car for his personal use. It was purchased from opposite parties 1 and 2 viz.), Benz Motors, subsequently known as M/s Focus Motors. They were the authorized dealers of the opposite parties 3 and 4 viz, Telco, subsequently known as Tata Motors Ltd. The aforesaid vehicle was manufactured by Tata Motors and sold to the complainant through the authorized dealers Benz Motors. The said vehicle was purchased on 24/1/2000 with warranty for 36 months. The 3rd opposite party/manufacturer gave warranty for 18 months and the 1st opposite party Benz Motors gave an extended warranty for another 18 months. Thus, the car was having the warranty from 24/1/2000 to 23/1/2003. The aforesaid car purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties has been exhibiting defects. The aforesaid car was having manufacturing defects. The complainant got his car repaired at the workshop of the 1st opposite party, authorized dealer on 25/3/2000, 4/7/2000, 27/7/2000, 16/8/2000, 25/8/2000, 26/9/2000, 5/8/2000, 17/10/2000, 30/11/2000, 18/1/2001,
(3.) /2/2001, 1/3/2001, 11/4/2001, 30/5/2001,14/7/2001, 4/12/2001 and 61/2/2001 for various defects including replacement of defective parts. Inspite of repeated repairs and replacement of spares the car developed defects one after the another. All the troubles developed because of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant being a consultant Orthopedic Surgeon hired vehicle for his personal use because of the fact that the vehicle had left at the workshop of the 1st opposite party on many occasions. The car got repaired at the workshop of the 1st opposite party for more than 100 times. The complainant had also lost his clients because of the non availability of the complainant as doctor the complainant suffered a loss at the rate of Rs.2000/ - per day. He also spent additional expenses at the rate of Rs.1000 per day for hiring vehicles. The vehicle purchased by the complainant is beyond repair and it is causing much hardship, financial loss, mental agony, stress and distress to the complainant. Thus, the complainant prayed to get the defective vehicle replaced with a new vehicle or to get the price of the vehicle refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the mental pain, stress, agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant with cost of the proceedings. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Honble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is bad for mis -jointer of parties. No deficiency of service has been alleged against the opposite parties 1 and 2. The Tata Indica Car purchased by the complainant on 24/1/2000 is not having any defect or manufacturing defect. The complainant availed the additional warranty provided by opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on inspection and on satisfaction. The complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of the opposite parties on various occasions during the period from 25/3/2000 to 6/12/2001 pointing out various defects in the vehicle. On inspection it was found that no such defect is in existence. There were only minor defects which were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. On certain occasions the vehicle was brought after it had met with an accident. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after effecting repairs on his satisfaction. The allegation that the vehicle is beyond repair is baseless and the same is denied. The complainant never brought the vehicle to the opposite parties with the complaint like excess smoke fumes, low pulling, low mileage, oil leakage, high engine noise, gear box complaint etc. The aforesaid allegations are made without any merit and basis. The opposite parties have not caused any mental agony inconvenience or financial loss to the complainant. The complainant has not incurred any additional expense at the rate of Rs.1,000/ - per day. The complainant is not entitled to get the vehicle replaced or to get refund of the price of the vehicle. He is also not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. Opposite parties 3 and 4 entered appearance and filed written version accepting the contentions adopted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. They also denied the alleged deficiency of service. They further contended that there was no defects much less manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the opposite parties 3 and 4 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.;


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