Don’t ever try to act smart with courts

Consumer courts are liberal in interpreting rules and regulations in favour of consumers, but this does not mean that the latter can take liberties for benefit. This was learnt by G Lenin in Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in The proprietor, Vahini Motors, Pallimukku Kollam vs. G Lenin.

Lenin purchased a Honda Activa from the company in 2003, and was given four coupons for free service of the car in the first year. The first service was done on October 21, 2003. When Lenin brought the car for servicing the second time on February 27, 2004, the motor company refused stating that he had brought the car too late for a second service. Lenin had to get the car serviced from another agency for Rs250. 

He took the case to Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Kollam, which held the motor company liable for efficiency of service and awarded him a refund of Rs250 as the cost of the service, with Rs500 as compensation and additional Rs250 as legal costs. 

The company went in appeal to the state commission at Kerala. It said the terms and conditions stated that second service was available only between 120 to 135 days after the car was sold or after 3,500 to 4,000 kilometres.

The company contended that Lenin had come after 135 days and hence was not entitled to the service. The last date for free service was January 21, 2004 and the consumer had come almost a month later.

It was found that the coupons did have such stipulations and that the consumer had approached the company after the validity period. The consumer could not be given benefit of doubt and the company was not bound to carry out the free service, it held. Setting aside the order of the lower court, the commission accepted the company’s appeal and said that it had no liability to the consumer.