KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 737/06
JUDGMENT DATED: 18..9..2012
PRESENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
M/s Tata Motors Ltd., : APPELLANT
26th Floor, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -5.
(By Adv. V.Krishna Menon)
Vs.
1. A.Inees Chiriankandath House, : RESPONDENTS
Peyoli Road, Kacheripadi,
Kochi-18.
(By Adv.Vinay Menon - Amicuscuraie)
2. Focuz Motors,
Focus Towers,
Edapally, Kochi-24.
(By Adv.V.Krishna Menon )
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in CC.No.522/05 dated 28.8.06 from the CDRF, Ernakulam. Later an additional 2nd respondent was impleaded as Focus Motors, Focus Towers, Edappally, Kochi-24 in the appeal stage. The appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that to pay Rs.17517/- incurred by the complainant as repairing charges as per Ext.A5. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.1500/- as costs to the complainant. In short thus the complainant who suffered a breakdown of his vehicle on 5.4.05 and it was taken to local workshop. The complaint could be determined only after opening the engine of the vehicle and when he contacted an authorized service centre and he was informed inorder to carry out repairs he would have to meet the expenses since the warranty period for the vehicle had long expired.. The complainant there upon having got his vehicle repaired from the local workshop, he was informed that the gudgeon pin had broken connecting rod twisted one piston broken and one cylinder bore damaged. The complainant was compelled to pay Rs.17517/- as in workshop as repair charges of the vehicle. He asked the opposite party to pay actual amount of Rs.20000/- as damages but both opposite parties refused to pay any amount. As the complainant for getting a compensation of Rs,1,00,000/- as damages also to pay costs. The opposite parties filed their written version and they strongly contended that complainant is not entitled to get any single paisa in this matter. They contended that they only liable for any defects mentioned in the complaint since they have occurred much after the warranty period. The vehicle of the complainant had a warranty for only 18 months irrespective of the kilometers covered. It is only in respect of car used for commercial purposes that the warranty is prescribed as 18 months or 50000 Kms whichever is earlier. As the complainant has no case he is operating his vehicle for commercial purpose, h is not entitled to place any reliance on the distance covered by his vehicle so as to contend that as he has not covered 50000kms. He is entitled to the benefit of the warranty. There is no inherent or manufacturing defect to the vehicle. There is neither in any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party nor has the opposite party sold a defective car. Hence they prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
2. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A12 and marked C1 as commission report. On the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 series marked and examined as DW1 and DW2.
3. The Forum below heard in detail and appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides and taken a view that they were having the strong opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of the repairing charges hence they allowed the complaint and also ordered above mentioned directions in the case.
4. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant and the respondent are present. They argued their own cases in detail. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the basis of the grounds of appeal memorandum that the Forum below erred in not adverting of the argument notes submitted on behalf of the appellant by passing the impugned order. The appellant asked to allow the appeal and also to be set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He submitted that order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. It is not legally sustainable. But on the other side the Advocate who appointed as Amicuscuraie on behalf of the complainant who argued his case in detail. He submitted that opposite parties definitely committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Due to the indifferent or in difficult attitude of the opposite parties respondent/ complainant who suffered huge loss, mental agony and monitory loss. He submitted that the amount ordered by the Forum below is only to refund the amount which already spent by the complainant strictly on the strength of the evidence adduced by him before the Forum below regarding the repair charges of the vehicle.
5. This Commission heard in detail and both the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent vehemently argued their own cases in detail on the basis of the fact circumstances and evidence. It is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is only to refund the amount which spent by the respondent/complainant as a repair charge of his vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. Due to the unexpected trouble of the vehicle he sustained huge sufferings and mental agony. The Forum below did not ordered any interest along with this amount. But in the circumstance this Commission is decided to set aside the cost of Rs.1500/- ordered by the Forum below. This Commission thinks that the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get repair charges alone. The result portion of the order passed by the Forum below is modified. The Forum below rightly answered all the questions arised in this dispute and answered accordingly. This order is legally sustainable.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.17517/- to the complainant which was spend by the complainant for repairing his vehicle within 15 days after the receipt of the order. If failure from the part of the opposite parties they are liable to pay 15% interest per annum to the above mentioned amounts from the date of 5.4.05 onwards. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
ps
