By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Diesel Auto Minidor CB3 manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party was the dealer who sold the vehicle to the Complainant. The 3rd Opposite Party provided service to the vehicles in Wayanad District. The price of the vehicle was Rs.1,51,400/-. The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,39,000/- and the vehicle was purchased adding the remaining amount by the Complainant and the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 30.7.2007. The Complainant spent an extra amount of Rs.10,000/- to make use of the vehicle for passenger service. The warranty period of the vehicle was for one year. From the very beginning onwards the vehicle purchased by the complainant manifested complaints such as consumption of excess oil and fuel and the milage of the vehicle was considerably less. It was not in a position to meet 15 km per one litre diesel even in the unloaded conditions. The change of oil required to be done as described in owners manual only after running 5500 to 6000 km. Whereas the Complainant had to fill daily minimum of 200ml oil. The ring sets were changed thrice in a short period of 15 months. The Complainant could not maintain the vehicle and the vehicle turned to be off the road because of the manufacturing defect. The instalments owed to the financier could not be remitted. The lawyer notice sent to the Opposite Party were not responded properly. The Opposite Party admitted the sale of the vehicle but according to them before releasing for delivery the vehicle was strictly put under the quality control test. Regarding the offer of milage 30 km per one litre diesel it is not received. The vehicle is inherent with manufacturing defect, engine over smoke diesel and oil consumption is excess, pulling power less and frequent defect of the piston. The Complainant spent Rs.15,000/- for the repair of the vehicle. A bill of Rs.18,993/- is produced along with the Complainant and some of the bills of repairs are not produced being missed. At present the vehicle is not meeting the target of 12 km milage per one litre diesel. The Complainant purchased the vehicle for his livelihood. Any how the defects in manufacture resulted great mental pressure and distress to the Complainant. There may be an order directing the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to take back the vehicle and to settle the liability of the financier the Complainant may be compensated in total of Rs.42,900/-.
2. The Complainant filed subsequently I.A. No.249/09 to delete the 2st and 3nd Opposite Parties and the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties were deleted in respect of the order dated 17.11.2009. 3. The 1st Opposite Party filed version and it is in short as follows. The sale of the vehicle to the Complainant is not directly connected to the 1st Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the company offered the milage of 30 KM/ 1 litter diesel is false. The relation between the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party is like a principle to principle basis. There is no omission or latches on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is in noway connected to the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party purchased the vehicle in lump sum from the 1st Opposite Party. The vehicle sold to the 2nd Opposite Party was tested and trialled and found satisfactory in the quality control test before the delivery of the vehicle. The Automation Research Association of India approved the modal of the vehicle manufactured by the company. More over the vehicle sold to the 2nd Opposite Party were of good condition and free from any defects in manufacture. The claim of the Complainant beyond the period of warranty cannot be entertained. The Complainant had not raised any allegation on the quality of the vehicle in the warranty period. More over whenever the free service was in turn this Opposite Party offered it. The claim of the Complainant for the replacement of the vehicle is after the period of warranty and because of that reason alone the claim cannot be entertained. The complaint is not maintainable it deserves dismissal with heavy cost.
4. The points in consideration are:- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. The Complainant is examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A20 are the documents produced by the Complainant. The report filed by the Expert Commissioner is Ext.C1 and the Commissioner has given oral testimony as CW1. The instant case is that the Complainant purchase the vehicle manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party. The vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect. The report of the Expert Commissioner is Ext.C1. According to the Expert Commissioner, the Motor Vehicle Inspector (1) the vehicle is having engine oil leak through head breather. (2) Engine cold condition from difficult to start. (3) Excessive blue smoke due to burning of engine oil. (4) Engine valve seating is dislocated. (5) Vehicle was driven and tested and the defects were noted. The odometer reading of the vehicle 43218 and the class three wheeler passenger. On examination of the Expert Commissioner it is stated that the vehicle belongs to decompression system. The leakage of the engine oil through head breather cannot be caused due to the usage of substandard oil or fuel. The defects noted in the vehicle according to the Commissioner Expert is only due to defect in manufacture. The expert Commissioner tested the vehicle driving it. In the report it is stated that the defects noted are mechanical defects. On examination the Expert Commissioner further amplified that the mechanical defects which is meant by him is manufacturing defect. The 1st Opposite Party sold the vehicle which is having inherent manufacturing defects. The Complainant produced the service coupon book which is Ext.B19. The vehicle was delivered to the Complainant and before the time of delivery the vehicle run a distance 1670 km. The Complainants case is that the 1st Opposite Party has not provided service centers to make available of the service either by the manufacture or by the dealers. The repairing and services for which the Complainant had to spent an extra amount. The Complainant spent considerable amount even in the warranty period and afterwards for the repair charges. We are in the opinion that the vehicle sold to the Complainant is having manufacturing defects and the point No.1 is found accordingly. 6. Point No.2:- The vehicle was plied a distance of 43218 km. The contention of 1st Opposite Party that the vehicle covered the period of warranty is not reasonable excuse. When the vehicle sold itself found to be defective in manufacture. How ever the Complainant had run a distance of 43218. The Complainant already contented that the purchase of the vehicle was to cut through the livelihood. The very purpose of the Complainant sending the vehicle as an employment ends in disappointment. The price of the vehicle is Rs.1,51,000/- as stated in the complaint. The Complainant has not brought out in evidence, the extent of time for which the vehicle can be in service in normal conditions of usage. The replacement of the vehicle has pleaded in the complaint is not reasonable in this circumstances instead we are in the opinion on that an amount of compensation is necessary to be paid to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to compensate the Complainant Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). The Complainant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards the cost. This order is to be complied within one month from the date of receiving this.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th December 2009.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant.
PW1. Manoj Kumar. Complainant. CW1. C.V.M Sharief. Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party.
Nil. Exhibits for the the Complainant:
A1. Reply Notice. dt:24.06.2008. A2. Reply Notice. dt:21.07.2008. A3 series (2 numbers). Bill. dt:24.12.2007. A4. Invoice. dt:10.11.2007. A5. Invoice. dt:11.09.2007. A6. Invoice. dt:19.04.2008. A7. Invoice. dt:19.01.2008. A8. Retail Invoice. dt:18.04.2008. A9. Quotation. dt:15.11.2008. A10. Receipt. dt:30.04.2007. A11. Receipt. dt:28.06.2007. A12. Receipt. dt: 30.07.2007. A13 series (2 numbers) Bill. dt:15.11.2008. A14. Bill. dt:13.10.2008. A15 series (2 numbers) Bill. dt:15.09.2008. A16. Quotation. dt:10.09.2008. A17. Quotation dt:09.09.2008. A18. Notice. dt:31.05.2008. A19. Service Coupon Book. A20. Receipt. C1. Commission Report. 09.09.2009. Exhibits for the Opposite Party: Nil. | 
