BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.81/2009

Between

Complainant : Eldo Abraham,

Muzhickal House,

Kunnackal P.O.

Muvattupuzha Via,

Ernakulam District.

Pin:682 316.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Athickal Automobiles,

T.V.S. Junction,

Vengalloor P.O.

Thodupuzha-685 584.

2. The Managing Director,

TVS Motor Company Ltd.,

Post Box No.4,

Harita, Hosur,

Tamilnadu-635 109.

(Both by Advs: P.M. Johny &

P.A.Suhas)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

The complainant on 5/02/08 purchased a fuel tank for his motor cycle from the shop of the 1st opposite party on payment of Rs.2,900/-. But after 11 months, on January the fuel tank became faulty and the same was entrusted in the shop of the 1st opposite party. But he did not react properly and the warranty of the fuel tank had expired in the 4th month. On 19/02/08 the complainant sent a registered notice to the 2nd opposite party, but no reply was given and the fuel tank was not replaced nor the complainant was compensated. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction for delivery of a new fuel tank and also for compensation.

2. In the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, it is admitted that the fuel tank in question was sold to the complaint on 5/02/2008. On February 2009 the complainant approached him complaining certain defects for the fuel tank. The manufacturer of the said fuel tank is the 2^nd opposite party and they replied that the fuel tank had warranty only for a period of 3 months. So the 1^st opposite party had expressed his helplessness in the matter. The complainant never approached the 1^st opposite party thereafter. There was no deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

3. In the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, it is admitted that the fuel tank in question was purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party. Any spare parts purchased through spare counter as per the spare parts warranty policy of three months. Even now also, the opposite party are ready and willing to replace the petrol tank with a new one, but the complainant is not co-operating with the opposite party. The complainant was never serviced his vehicle in the service center of 1^st opposite party. The maintenance were done by untrained and unauthorized persons. There was no manufacturing defect. The complainant's vehicle is in good working condition and there was no leakage in the fuel tank of the complainant's vehicle as complained by the complainant. But as per goodwill gesture, the opposite parties are ready to replace the petrol tank. There was absolutely no negligence on deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 & P2(a) and MO1 on the side of the complainant.

6. The POINT:- It is admitted that the fuel tank was purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the bill issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the registered notice issued by the complainant, where in the fact has been stated. No reply was given to the complainant. The only dispute is whether the guarantee card was issued. But at the time of evidence, the complainant as PW1 has admitted that the complaint was arised after eleven months. Under the general law regarding sale of goods, replacement is possible only if the goods in question suffer from any manufacturing defect. In this particular case, manufacturing defect of any sort is not proved. The complainant made a complaint before the 1^st opposite party, after eleven months. The 1^st opposite party replied that the fuel tank had a warranty only for a period of 3 moths. At the time of the examination, the opposite party has stated that they are ready to replace the fuel tank in question for maintaining a good customer relationship. The complainant would insist that he should be paid the expenses incurred by him and compensation for deficiency in services. We have considered the stand points of both sides and are of opinion that the suitable solution would be to direct the opposite party to replace the fuel tank in question or to pay Rs.2,900/- being the price of the fuel tank. Deficiency in service cannot alleged against the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or even the costs of this complaint from the opposite party.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to replace the fuel tank(MO1) purchased by the complainant as Ext.P1 with a fresh branded one or pay Rs.2,900/- to the complainant with in 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of June, 2009.

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Eldo Abraham

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of bill issued by the 1st opposite party.

Ext.P2 - Copy of Notice dated 18/02/2009.

Ext.P2(a) - Copy of Postal Receipt

MO 1 - Fuel Tank.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil