KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.223/03 JUDGMENT DATED 28.12.2007 (Appeal filed against the Order passed by CDRC, Kollam in OP No.468/2000) PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Ashok Leyland Ltd., 480, Annai Salai, Nandanam, Chennai represented by its Deputy General Manager : APPELLANT (By Adv: Sri.K.Raghu Varma) 1. B.Sunil Kumar, Ragam, Thekkevila-B-Ward, Madan Nada, Kollam – 691 015. (By Adv: B.Sunil Kumar) 2. The Manager, T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Puthenthura.P.O., Kollam. : RESPONDENTS (By Adv:R.Somanathan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT `The appellant is the first opposite party/manufacturer who are under orders to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.18,643/- towards the loss incurred by the complainant on account of the excess consumption of engine oil and Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation. The case of the complainant who is mentioned as a driver having heavy duty driving licence is that he purchased an Ashok Leyland Comet Trucker Lorry from the second opposite party/dealer on 29.03.99 spending a sum of Rs.5,19,700/- of which Rs.4,00,000/- was availed from the financier, M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited. According to him, since the date of purchase it was found that the rate of engine oil consumed is very high. According to him for each trip covering 5,000/- km., the engine oil used tobe consumed amounted to 10 litres. The matter was reported to the dealer, the second opposite party a number of times and each time the mechanics of the dealer used to effect repairs and charge the complainant although the repairs were made during the warranty period of 18 months. The vehicle also had break down. Major repairs were done to the pump etc. He was assured that the defects were rectified but still and even at the time of filing of the complaint at least 8 litres of engine oil is consumed for each trip covering 5,000/- kms. He is plying the lorry interstate. He has sustaining the loss to the tune of Rs.800/- for each trip. He has sought for replacing of the engine and other reliefs. The first opposite party, the manufacturer has filed a version contending that the warranty covered only repairs arising out of manufacturing defects. Defects due to driving habits and lack of maintenance are not covered. It is denied that there was a high oil consumption. The manufacturer has also mentioned the details and dates on which the vehicle was taken to the dealer. According to them only once, ie., on 08.03.00 excess oil consumption was reported. But according to them oil consumption was found to be satisfactory. According to them only for non warranty items and consumables he was charged. It is also pointed out that by the time the vehicle had run almost 18,000/- Kms. According to them there was no warrantee regarding oil consumption and that the same can happen due to poorer maintenance etc. It is mentioned that the fact that the fuel injunction pump was repaired is not relevant so to oil consumption is concerned. The second opposite party the dealer has supported the first opposite party. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 & 2, Exts. P1 to P13 and C1. We find that an expert was appointed at the instance of the complainant to examine the vehicle and submit the report. The expert who is an Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD Department, qualified in Automobile Engineering has submitted a report, ie., is Ext.C1 fully supporting the case of the complainant. He has reported that engine oil loss was examined by him during inspections and found that the vehicle has consumed more engine oil than what is required. In a trip of about 5000 K.M., the owner has to use about 5 litre of engine oil additionally to top up the engine oil level due to the defects of the Engine. The K.M. reading when the initial inspection of the vehicle was conducted by him was 1,81,420 K.M. So the complainant has incurred a loss of about Rs.18,643/- due to excess loss of engine oil of 181 litres @ Rs.103 per litre. The above loss of engine oil in excess is seen generally due to the defects of the engine, as no major engine oil leakages were noticed from any wherelse and that the above defect might have happened during engine assembly. Therefore it is a manufacturing defect. Since this defect, has been noticed from the beginning and reported to the suppliers they could have rectified it by required overhauling. We find that nothing was brought out in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his report, ie., Ext.C1. It is contended that the counsel for the appellant that wear and tear also will effect the oil consumption and that PW2 has admitted the same. But we find that the case of the complainant is that from the very beginning there was considerable oil loss. According to PW1, the complainant he was regularly complaining about the above defect to the dealer and he had also sent Ext. P9 notice to the dealer and the manufacturer Ext.P9 to P12 are notices and acknowledgments. There was no reply. No contra evidence was also adduced by the appellant. In the circumstances, we find that there is no reason set aside the order of the Forum regarding the direction to replace the engine with a new one. But the direction to pay Rs.18,643/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss and compensation, we find, is not called for as he has used the vehicle so far. In the circumstances, the above portion of the order is modified. The direction to replace the engine only is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT. SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER. FJ |
