Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/905

M/S BAJAJ AUTO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAL V.A - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.905/12

JUDGMENT DATED:31.08.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

1. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Akrudi, Pune.                                                          

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. M/s Popular Motor Corporation,

Bajaj Sales,

Indian Express Building,

Kaloor, Kochi-682 017.

 

(By Adv: Sri. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

 

            Vs.

 

Amal V.A,

Valuparambil (H), Kayanadu,

Ooramana P.O, Muvattupuzha.                                      : RESPONDENT

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.70/11 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 27, 2012 directing the opposite parties to refund the repair charges of the vehicle to the complainant and to rectify its defect.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsar-DTS-F1 Motor Cycle from the 2^nd opposite party on May 12, 2008 for Rs.82,368/-.  Two years or 30,000.Kms warranty was provided to the vehicle.   On January 15, 2010 vehicle abruptly switched off when started.  Though 2^nd opposite party cured the defect which was during the warranty period, they collected Rs.1776/- towards the repair charges.  On April 29, 2010 the fuel filter was replaced for which 2^nd opposite party collected Rs.1993/-.  The same complaint was repeated on May 24, 2010 and the starter assembly was replaced.  Again it was repaired on July 29, 2010 and on September 28, 2010 for the very same defect occurred as the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect.  Complainant filed the complaint for refund of the price of the vehicle and also refund of the repairing charge Rs.66,361/-.  He also claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      The first opposite party is M/s Bajaj Auto Limited and 2^nd opposite party is M/s Popular Motor Corporation, Kochi.  They in their version admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party.  First opposite party is the manufacturer and 2^nd opposite party is the authorized agent of the first opposite party.  On January 15, 2010 the service centre received the vehicle when it has covered 15125 Kms for routine repairs.  No complaint was made regarding the alleged switching off the vehicle.  On April 29, 2010 service centre received the vehicle with the complaint of side pulling and on examination it was found that inner tube was bend.  On May 20, 2010 when the vehicle covered 18203 Kms normal repair was done.   On July 29, 2010 also vehicle was repaired when the vehicle covered 19077 Kms.  There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A3 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the repair charges and to cure the defects of the vehicle.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard the counsel for the appellants.  Respondent/complainant remained absent inspite of receipt of notice.

6.      Following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any manufacturing defect to the vehicle?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      Ext.A1 series the bills and Exts.B1 to B4 the job cards show that the vehicle was repaired on 15.1. 2010, 30.4.2010, 20.5.2010 and 29.7.2010.  It is seen that except the periodic service there was no major repair done.  There was no report of the expert to show that there was any manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  That being so no deficiency of service can be attributed to the opposite parties.  It follows that appeal has to be allowed and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum to refund the repair charges and to repair the defect of the vehicle is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

 

 JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

VL.

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER