Ernakulam District Commission Holds Car Seller Liable For Denying Benefits Of Extended Warranty Benefits For Car Repairs
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. for denying the benefits of a valid Extended Warranty Scheme held by the Complainant whose car broke down due to bearing issues, within the warranty period. The District...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. for denying the benefits of a valid Extended Warranty Scheme held by the Complainant whose car broke down due to bearing issues, within the warranty period. The District Commission held that the Seller's conscious failure to file a written version despite having received the appearance notice, amounted to an admission of the allegations levelled against it.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a Honda Amaze Petrol Car from M/s Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. (“Seller”). At the time of the purchase, the Seller charged for an 'Extended Warranty Scheme' and 'Roadside Assistance' valid up to 02.10.2022, promising the replacement of damaged car parts. On 27.09.2022, that is, 5 days before the expiration of the warranty scheme, the Complainant's car broke down because of bearing problems. Therefore, he requested roadside assistance from the Seller, which was denied. The Seller informed the Complainant that the problem would be covered under the Extended Warranty Scheme. However, after conducting repairs, the Seller asked for an additional payment of Rs. 8,100/-, claiming that the Extended Warranty scheme had expired. Under pressure, the Complainant had to pay the aforementioned amount for taking the car out of the Seller's service centre. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice to the Seller but the Seller did not respond. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”), against the Seller, for denial of the Extended Warranty Scheme despite due assurances.
The Seller failed to file a written version and therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission observed that the Seller failed to file a written version of its contentions, rendering the Complainant's allegations unchallenged. It also amounted to the admission of the allegations levelled against the Seller.
After perusing the documentary evidence and considering the Complainant's testimony, the District Commission was of the view that the Seller engaged in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by charging for the repairs that were initially promised to be covered under the Extended Warranty Scheme. This led to monetary loss and mental distress to the Complainant.
Conclusively, the District Commission directed the Seller to pay Rs. 13,000/- for denial of the roadside assistance scheme and for refunding the amount charged despite the Extended Warranty Scheme. A further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was ordered as compensation for mental agony and physical hardships. The Seller was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for litigation costs.
Case Title: Baby C.C. vs M/s Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: C.C. No. 11/2023
Advocate for the Complainant: Geevan T. Charles
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.