KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL Nos. 912/2015 & 130/2016

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 18.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 73/2011 of CDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

APPEAL No. 912/2015

APPELLANT:

Executive Officer (Service), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122 015, Haryana.

                      (By Advs. Jayabal Menon & N.G. Mahesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Alex Thomas, Kaduakkunnel House, Eeruvassi Amsom Desom, Chemberi P.O., Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur.

(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)

2. Manager, Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd., Male Chovva, Kannur.

3. Managing Director, Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd., Kuttookkaran Centre, Mamangalam, Kochi.

                                   (By Adv. R. Suja Madhav for R2 & R3)

APPEAL No. 130/2016

APPELLANTS:

1. Manager, Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd., Male Chovva, Kannur.

2. Managing Director, Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd., Kuttookkaran Centre, Mamangalam, Kochi.

                                   (By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

RESPONDENTS:

1. Alex Thomas, Kaduvakkunnel House, Eeruvassi Amsom Desom, Chemberi P.O., Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur.

(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)

2. Executive Officer (Service), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122 015, Haryana.

                      (By Advs. Jayabal Menon & N.G. Mahesh for R2)

COMMON JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellants are the opposite parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 73/2011.  The District Forum as per the order dated 28.09.2015 had directed the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the air conditioner and wind shield glass of the Maruti car purchased by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. 

2.  The averments contained in the complaint in brief are that on 31.08.2010 the complainant had purchased a Maruti A Star car from the 2^nd opposite party for a total consideration of Rs. 3,61,620/-.  Soon after purchasing the vehicle the complainant found that its A.C and wind shield glass were defective and so he was not able to use the vehicle properly.  He took the matter with the opposite party and they replaced the wind shield glass but the same defect continued.  Due to fog formation on the wind shield glass it was not possible for him to drive the vehicle.  His repeated demands for rectification were unattended.  Hence he would allege deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties.  He would seek for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 

3.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version by denying the allegations.  Their case is that formation of mist is a natural phenomenon that may occur to any vehicle which is not a manufacturing defect as alleged.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part.  They would seek for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  Before the District Forum the complainant had tendered evidence as PW1.  Exts. A1 to A14, Exts. C1 and C2 were also marked.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had filed affidavit.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 are the appellants in A 130/16 and 3^rd opposite party is the appellant in A 912/2015.  According to them there is no manufacturing defect and the case stated in the complaint is a natural process, which could be remedied by following the procedure by switching on the air conditioner or by manual cleaning of the wind shield glass.  Without resorting to this process the complainant had approached the District Forum and filed the complaint. 

5.  Heard the counsels for the appellants and the respondent.  Perused the records of the District Forum.  The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the complainant had availed the assistance of an expert who filed Exts. C1 and C2 reports.  The opposite parties though filed objections against Ext. C1 & C2 never examined the expert to impeach the credibility of the reports filed by him.  The evidence on record would show that the oppose party had replaced the wind shield glass and resolved the complaint.  On going through Exts. C1 & C2 this court does not find any serious defects to the A.C or glass.  Normally when vehicles are driven during rainy season mist could be seen on the wind shield glass.  This could be resolved by adopting the instructions from the dealer and also by approaching the matter in a sensible manner.  The observations contained in Exts. C1 and C2 are that the defect seen in this particular vehicle is not seen in similar vehicles.  The expert did not analyse the issue in its proper perspective for reaching at a definite conclusion.  It is not always necessary to cross examine the expert so as to assess the correctness of the opinion.  The observations contained in the first report that the presence of water vapour on the outer portion of the glass of this particular car was much higher than that of a car of similar nature is a vague one.  The complainant had remained absent during the fag end of the proceedings as reflected in the order of the District Forum.  Lack of interest on the part of the complainant is evident from his conduct in keeping himself away from the proceedings of the District Forum.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 had filed affidavits fully narrating the version contained in the counter statement.   According to them the vehicle was repaired by them and the alleged defect in forming fog or mist on the wind shield glass is on account of the ignorance of the complainant in the operation of the vehicle.  Compensation could be ordered only if the complainant has succeeded to establish any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had expressed their readiness to effect any repairs in respect of the alleged complaint.  Their grievance is that no compensation could be ordered since there is no defect to the vehicle supplied by them.  Having due regard to the entire evidence on record, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle bears any defect so as to entitle the complainant to claim compensation.  The District Forum has not approached the matter in the correct perspective.  The opinion of the expert as noted in Exts. C1 & C2 is vague.  So it is quite unsafe to place reliance on Exts. C1 & C2 to reach a conclusion that the motor car purchased by the complainant is having any manufacturing defect.  The complainant has caused production of certain bills to prove that he had availed taxi service when the vehicle was not in operation. When the vehicle is given to the service centre for effecting repairs, it is natural that some other mode of conveyance has to be availed.  The genuineness of the taxi receipts produced by the complainant is disputed by the opposite parties.  On an overall evaluation of the evidence it is found that the complainant has failed to prove that he had suffered any loss on account of the alleged defect of the vehicle.  So it is found that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.  The order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 

In the result, both the appeals are allowed.  The order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 73/2011 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.  On a consideration of the nature of the dispute it is found that the parties shall bear their respective costs.

                          Sd/-

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         Sd/-

                                                     BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb