BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Monday the 28th day of August, 2006
CD.No. 59/2005
R. Nagarjuna Reddy,
S/o. R. Subba Reddy,
Aged 30 years,
R/o. Moola Brundhavanam Street,
Mantralayam,
Yemmiganur (T) Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
M/s Bajaj Temp Limited,
Akurdi, Pune-411 035.
2. The Proprietor,
M/s M.G. Brothers Automotive-
Enterprises, M.S Narasappa,
R/o. 7/110, M.G. Chowrasta,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri S. Baleeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, President)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.5,78,027/- towards the various item of claim made in para No. 7 of the complaint, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with interest at 24% per annum and costs of the case alleging deficiency from the opposite party in selling him a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing no. AP 21 V 6321 on 10.5.2003 with inherent manufacturing defects which started giving troubles since 21.6.2003 by breakage of tension bar of front suspension during journey from Manthralayam to Yemmiganur and inspite of its replacement, by paying cost, again its breakage on 24.3.2003 followed breakage of same parts eight times in an interval of about two months thereafter. On technical expert opinion it is felt that the said is occurring on account of manufacturing defect of mal alignment of chassis and it cannot be cured. On account of said inherent manufacturing defect Tyre rod ends damaged, steering lost control, abnormal and uneven wear and tare of the tyres occurred at 25,000 K. M run only instead of 50,000 K.Ms run and on account of said frequent troubles the complainant could not avail of the benefits of the said vehicle as it could not run more than 46,000/- K.M even under period of warranty and ensured him Rs.10,000/- towards Idle charges.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the matter filing written version of opposite party No.2 and its adoption by opposite party No.1.
3. The written version of opposite party No.2 alleges violation of terms and conditions of the manufacturer by Complainant by getting attended the repairs and the replacements of the parts of the vehicle parts, vide bill No.s 184, 194,221, 231, 251 and 573, 540,600 by M/s Baba Automobiles, Yemmiganur, M/s Kaga Mohiddin Auto Garage. Yemmiganur respectively on 2.6.2003 who are not authorised service centre of the opposite party inspite of the servicing of the said vehicle by opposite party No.2 authosied service centre Yemmiganur on the very same day and allege expert opinion as to inherent manufacturing defect in the said vehicle as inconsistent one as the very technical expert vide his letter dated 13.5.2005 made clear that he gave any such opinion as to the manufacturing defect apart from the fact that none in Kurnool District or having any competency to certify as such for want of necessary testing machine with them. It lastly allege that the alleged tear and wear of tyres is normal as their normal life is six months or 50,000/- K.ms run which ever is earlier subject to usage of vehicle with correct rood load capacity, rood condition, speed and air pressure and the bill No. 382,345 and 296 placed by the complainant are doubtful for want of dates therein and ultimately dis owns any liability to the Complainant’s claim as the terms and conditions of manufacturer were violated by the complainant by getting the vehicle repaired by unauthorised service centre shop Yemmiganur inspite of existence of authorized service center of opposite party at Yemmiganur.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.11, Ex C.1 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case and a third party affidavit and the evidence of K. Satya Narayana-an insurance surveyor and loss assessor as PW1-and replies caused to the interrogatories, the opposite parties has taken reliance on the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 and reply of the complainant to interrogatories.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out the cause of action amounting to a consumer disputes at the deficiency of the opposite parties either in the standard of the vehicle supplied or in its servicing attracting the liability of the opposite parties to the claim of the Complainant.
6. The Ex A.1 is Invoice dated 10.5.2003. It envisage the purchase of the Tempo Trax vehicle mentioned therein by the complainant from the oppose party No.2 – authorized dealer of Tempo –Trax at Kurnool for the amount show therein as alleged in the complaint. The Ex A.2 is delivery note dated 10.5.2003 wherein the Complainant acknowledges, from the opposite party No.2, the delivery of the vehicle mentioned in Ex A.1 to him on 10.5.2003. The fact of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant being not denied by the opposite party they stands proved to the fact mentioned therein.
7. The contention of the Complainant’s side is that is said vehicle was put to and under gone several repairs and the vehicle became un-remunarative to him on account of the troubles it shooted and the said was due to the manufacturing defects of said vehicle.
8. The evidence of PW1 K. Satya Narayana insurance surveyor and loss assessor by profession, who has inspected the said vehicle of the Complainant in pursuance of warrant issued by this Forum vide orders in IA 487/05 dated 30.11.2005 to report as to the nature of the defects with which said vehicle is suffering, says in his evidence that the diagonal lengths of left hand side and right hand side long members which are expected tobe equal with a maximum error of 7 m.m – are not equal within the permissible limits as exceeding by about 31 m.m and its effect shall be on shell, steering system and its suspension, leading to loosening of parts of the vehicle and said variances in lengths of long members of chassis of the vehicle is a manufacturing defect and the said aspect is not discredited either by any effective cross examination of said witness by opposite party side or by placing any standard technical data particulars of said model vehicle by its manufacturing company.
9. The cash bills in Ex A.3 to A.11 envisage how frequently the said vehicle has gone sick and put to repairs and coupled with the unrebutted evidence of PW1 it goes with out any further say that the said manufacturing defect arising out of improper and inequal lengths of both sides long members of said vehicle his an incurable one and thereby making out the liability of the opposite party to replace the said vehicle with a defect free new vehicle of same model.
10. The opposite party side files a letter dated 13.5.2005 along with its written version which was said to have been addressed to the opposite party No.2 by Shaik Shavalli – Khaja Moiuddin Auto garage Yemmiganur. It says that he did not inform to the complainant as to the defect in chassis frame alignment – as he was not possessing necessary testing instruments in his garage. By this, the opposite party side wants to impress, that there are any manufacturing defects as to chassis alignment and there by the falsity in complainant’s contentions as to any manufacturing defects in the vehicle sold to the Complainant and so any of their liability to the Complainant’s case. But that is not going to be available to the opposite party side as third party affidavit of Sk. Shavali of Khaja Moiuddin Auto garage Yemmiganur filed into the case dis-owns of any of his concern to said letter, and nothing much to discredit his veracity comes fourth from opposite party side to lay any reliance on said document and to draw any inference against the Complainant.
11. The written version of opposite party encloses an unattested terms and conditions of warranty said to have been issued by the company named Bajaj Tempo Limited, Akurdi – Pune – 411005 showing warranty period on Trax Gama D1/ Cruiser D1 Engine for 36 months or 3,00,000 K.M which ever earlier from the date of sale on the items covered under the schedule II to VI covered in para No.s 8 to 12 excluding totally the items in its first schedule, covering warranty to periods varying from 12 months to 36 months. While such is so with warranty period of different items of vehicle, condition No. 14 at page 20 excepts from the liability of the company of the repairs and replacements caused by any person other than its authorised dealer. When the terms and conditions of warranty applies the purchaser of the vehicle is bound to get its service including any repairs or replacements, that circumstances demand, by the authorised service centre of said company only as for those things attended by unauthorised persons the company cannot shoulder its responsibility it being not aware of the actual situation and condition of the parts of said vehicle prior to said service, repair and replacement undertaken by said unauthorised persons or agencies. The reason behind the said condition being sound and reasonable that expenditure which the Complainant was said to have incurred under documentary record in Ex A.7 to A.11 being they were issued and attended by other than the authorised service centre, they cannot be found to liability of the opposite parties to make any good of them to the complainant and the said documents in the circumstances utmost suggests how bad the vehicle faced an account of its inherent defects.
12. Now coming to the Ex A.3 to A.5 is concerned it covers purchase of four “Torson bar “ costing each Rs. 1278/- by Complainant from the opposite party No.2 – aturhorised dealer at Yemmiganur, in between 12.6.2003 to 1.2.2005. There appears any denial for them from the opposite party side. Hence they are remaining established in favour of the complainant to hold them as expenditure incurred by the Complainant for providing them to his purchased vehicle . The said repeated purchase of spare parts mentioned in Ex A.3 to A.5 coupled with the technical evidence of PW1 and his report in Ex C.1 further indicates the gravity of the inherent manufacturing defect of the said vehicle and the said defect was not curable by replacement of said parts even.
13. The condition No. 9 under the third schedule of terms and conditions applicable to the warranty period of said vehicle, as filed by the opposite party along with written version, covers the warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase of said vehicle to “ Torsion bar” under item front suspension component. From the date of those bills in Ex A.3 to A.5 they being of 21.6.2003, 24.9.2003 and 1.2.2005 and the date of purchase of said vehicle being 10.5.2003 the bills in ExA.3 and A.5 being of one month 11 days and 4 1/2 respectively to the date of purchase of vehicle, the amount there under amounting to Rs. 2556 /- ( i.e 1278x2) is only remaining to the entitlenss of the complainant from the opposite party as costs of spare parts covered under warranty period.
14. As the opposite parties by their indifferent attitude in setting right the grievance of the Complainant as to the said vehicle, driven the Complainant to legal redressal to this Forum they are liable to make good of the costs of this case to the Complainant.
15. As the record placed and relied by the complainant envisages how bad the said purchased vehicle has given its service in an unremunarative manner to the Complainant by its frequent sickness, the Complainant is remaining entitled to compensation for mental agony suffered with said defective vehicle.
- Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, RS.10,000/- as costs, Rs.2,556/- towards the incurred expenditure of spare parts covered under Ex A.3 and A.4 besides to replacement of the said defective vehicle a defect free one of the same model or in case of not providing a defect free vehicle to pay the cost of the said vehicle mentioned in Ex A.1 to complainant. Time for compliance granted is one month from the receipt of this order by the opposite parties. In default the liability of the both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the supra award with 9% interest till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties: Nil
PW1 Deposition of (K.Satyanara-
yana ), dt 11.7.2006.
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Invoice, dt 10.5.2003 for Rs. 4,13,895/-.
Ex A.2 Delivery note, dt 10.5.2003.
Ex A.3 Cash bill, dt 21.6.2003 for Rs.1,278/-.
Ex A.4 Cash bill, dt 24.9.2003, for Rs.1,278/-.
Ex A.5 Purchase bill, dt 1.2.2005 for Rs.2,500/-.
Ex A.6 Purchase bill, dt 28.2.2005 for Rs.1,500/-.
Ex A.7 Purchase cash bill, dt 16.8.2003 for Rs. 4,756/-.
Ex A.8 Purchase cash bill, dt 27.4.2004 for Rs.3,706/-.
Ex A.9 Purchase cash bill dt 02.9.2004 for Rs. 3,292/-.
Ex A.10 Cash bill, dt 6.1.2005 for Rs.4,548/-.
Ex A.11 Repair bill, dt 2.6.2003 for Rs.3,280/-.
Ex C.1 Commission report in IA No. 487/2006.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri S. Baleeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
