KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 948/2003 JUDGMENT DATED 18-12-2007 PRESENT: JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. Regional Manager, Kinetic Motor Company Ltd., Regional Office, Kaloor, Kochi. : APPELLANTS 2. The Managing Director, Kinetic Motor Company Ltd., D-1 Block, Plot 18/02, Chinchwad, Pune, Maharashtra – 411 019. (By Adv. Sri. Narayan R.) V 1. Anish James, Munjanattu House, Mannamkandam P.O. : RESPONDENT 200 Acre, Adimali, Idukki. (By Adv. Sri. S. Krishnakumar) 2. The Manager, Blue Mount Automobiles, 40/5339, Banarjee Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 013. 3. Santhosh, Owner, Autoline, Sreekrishna Buildings, Thodupuzha, Idukki. : RESPONDENTS 4. Suresh, Owner, Autoline, Sreekrishna Buildings, Thodupuzha, Idukki. JUDGMENT SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU The appellants are the opposite parties 4 & 5 in O.P. 84/02 in the file of CDRF, Idukki and under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 39,800 being the price of the Kinetic Honda Motorcycle purchased by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The complainant had alleged that the Kinetic Honda Challenger Motorcycle purchased by him from the first opposite party, the dealer on 2.6.01 on payment of Rs. 39,800/- and having two years warranty and with the promise of fuel efficiency of 93 Km/L and free service in the authorized service centers of the 4th opposite party happened to be a totally defective vehicle. It was not having the fuel efficiency of more than 40 km/L and failed to achieve even a top speed of 60 Km. Although the petitioner approached the second opposite party/the authorized service centre, they rather ill treated the complainant. The complainant has sustained considerable monetory loss in the deal. The 4th opposite party, the Managing Director of the manufacturer had filed a version disputing the allegations. According to him, the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect and the complications are on account of the defective driving of the vehicle by the complainant. He has pointed out that the complainant had already driven the vehicle for about 25000 Km. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P10. The expert commissioner appointed by the Court has certified that the fuel efficiency was only about 40-45 Km/L and that there was abnormal sounds from the engine and the pick up was low. There was erratic sounds from the clutch. There are defects with respect to the running of the chain, leakage of oil from the gear box and defective functioning of the shock absorber. The fiber portion behind the seat was broken. Objection was filed over the commission by the appellant. We find that PW1 has testified as to the condition of the vehicle in tune with his version in the complaint. It was also brought out that the company has stopped the production of the particular vehicle. On the otherhand, the appellants had contented that the fuel efficiency mentioned in the brochures is on level roads and not in uneven terrain like that of Idukki. It is also pointed out that the complainant has used the vehicle for about 2 years. It is seen that the vehicle was purchased on 2.6.01 and the case was filed on 6.5.02. It is not disputed that the complainant had run the vehicle for about 25000 Km. It is not disputed that the complainant had represented before the dealer as to the defects of the machine earlier also. All the same, we find that the direction to repay the entire amount ie., the price of the vehicle ie., Rs. 39,800/- to the complainant, who is still keeping the vehicle and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- appears somewhat on the higher side. It has also to be noted that no evidence has been adduced at the instance of the opposite parties. We find that the vehicle has got manufacturing defects as held by the Forum. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is liable to be modified. The amount ordered to be paid by the appellants is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the order of the Forum. The direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is deleted. The appeal is allowed in part. JUSTICE K.R UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN, MEMBER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 948/2003 JUDGMENR DT: 18.12.2007 |
