Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
B. Sudheendra Kumar, President, Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member and Radhakrishnan K.R., Member
Authorised Officer M/s Popular
Motor World Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Sathyajith M.S. – Respondent
First Appeal No.542 of 2022
(Against the order in C.C.No.267/2016 on the file of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
Decided on 15.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Automobile – Sale of used and defective car – OPs directed by District Commission to repair defects of car owned by complainant within one month free of cost, to pay Rs.8,000/- being amount collected as service charges and Rs.5,000/- as costs – Specific case set up by complainant was that OPs had declined to carry out repairs and hand over vehicle to complainant though vehicle was entrusted with service centre of OPs – Complainant never claimed any benefit under warranty – As long as complainant never claims benefit under warranty, question of impleading manufacturer does not arise – Complainant was deceived by OPs – OP had collected amount of Rs.4,23,000/- as consideration and they had also charged amount for effecting service and thereafter they had declined to deliver vehicle to complainant after carrying out repairs even after collecting further amount of Rs.8,000/- – There was gross deficiency in service on part of OP – Order passed by District Commission is reasonable and affirmed.
Held: The specific case set up by the complainant was that the opposite parties had declined to carry out the repairs and hand over vehicle to the complainant though the vehicle was entrusted with the service centre of the opposite parties as early on 02.08.2014. It is also curious to note that the entire complication arose within two days after servicing of the vehicle. The complainant never claimed any benefit under the warranty which is evident from his conduct in effecting payment of Rs.4,985/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) as service charges. As long as the complainant never claims benefit under the warranty, the question of impleading the manufacturer does not arise. Here the case of the complainant is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not carrying out the repairs and not handing over the vehicle which was entrusted with the opposite party on 02.08.2014.
18. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the complainant was deceived by the opposite parties. He had paid the service charges on 31.07.2014 a sum of Rs.4,985/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) and the vehicle was delivered to him. Immediately complications arose. If the service was properly carried out, there cannot be any further complication to the vehicle. Five complaints were noted in Exhibit A3. Arising such complications immediately after the service is a clear indication that the opposite parties did not carry out any proper service or the vehicle sold to the complainant was not fit for the use of the complainant. The opposite party had collected an amount of Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand only) as consideration and they had also charged amount for effecting service and thereafter they had declined to deliver the vehicle to the complainant after carrying out the repairs even after collecting a further amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only).
So it is evident that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with respect to the work carried out by the opposite parties. The technical objections raised by the appellants that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of manufacturer is found unsustainable on the reason that the complainant never claimed any benefit under the warranty, though he stated that the opposite parties had assured that the vehicle was covered under a warranty period of one year. On a cumulative analysis of the entire evidence on record, we find that the appeal lacks merits on all material facts.
20. The District Commission has only passed an order directing the appellants to repair the defects of the car free cost, to return Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) the amount charged and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. The order passed by the District Commission appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the complainant at this stage . The complainant is permitted to receive the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal towards the amount to be realised under the order passed by the District Commission. (Paras 12, 18, 19 and 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C.No.267/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (the District Commission for short).
2. On 16.09.2022 the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to repair the defects of the car owned by the complainant within one month free of cost, to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) being the amount collected as service charges and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.
3. The complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service with respect to a used car which was purchased from the opposite party. On 7.8.2023 the complainant had purchased 2009 model i.20 diesel car from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand only).
4. At the time of purchase, the opposite party had assured that there will be warranty for one year. But within few months the vehicle became defective and the complainant had entrusted the vehicle with the service station of the opposite party. The service was effected by charging an amount of Rs.4,985/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only). But the defects reappeared. So the complainant had again entrusted the vehicle with the opposite parties to carry out the repair works. The estimated costs charged was Rs.15,463/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Three).An advance amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) was also paid on 02.08.2014 and the vehicle was brought to the service station of the opposite parties at Paravur for effecting the repairs. But the repair was not completed and the opposite parties had declined to deliver the vehicle. The efforts put in by the complainant to resolve the issue in an amicable manner went in vain and hence the complaint was filed.
5. The opposite parties had entered appearance before the District Commission and filed a version by admitting the purchase of the used car from the 3rd opposite party. According to them no warranty was offered to the complainant. They added that the warranty was offered by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. Therefore, the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings. It is further alleged that the warranty of a used car is approved for a period of one year or 20,000kms along with two free services on selected parts. The complainant never brought the vehicle for the mandatory services.
6. According to the opposite parties it is not on account of their fault the vehicle could not be serviced in time. They had set up a case that a fresh repair estimate dated 24.06.2016 was served on the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.61,940.03/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty and Three paise only) for electronic control unit and Rs.31,168.74/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Eight and Seventy Four paise only) for wiring work. There was no deficiency in service on their part and hence they would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. The complainant had tendered evidence before the District Commission as PW1. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on their side. On the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exhibit B1 was also marked.
8. The opposite parties would assail the order of the District Commission on the reason that the District Commission had failed to understand the real facts of the case in the correct perspective. The District Commission ought to have held that the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The District Commission had failed to notice that the vehicle had already covered 1,03,591kms. The District Commission also failed to consider the fact that Exhibit B1 was also marked without any objection which was produced along with the version. There was no steps taken by the complainant to ascertain the defects in
Sale of used and defective car – As long as complainant never claims benefit under warranty, question of impleading manufacturer does not arise.
(1) Third party - The complainant cannot insist that the work should be conducted only by the third opposite party. No fault could be attributed on the part of the first and second opposite parties a....
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decid....
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
