Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this complaint against the opponents under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievances, that he had purchased a Bajaj Auto G.C. 1000 vehicle manufactured by the 1st opponent through the 2nd opponent who is a dealer on 18.08.2005 bearing No.KA-09-A-3784. <br /> 2. That he had purchased the said vehicle by obtaining loan from Bajaj Finance. After purchase of the vehicle he had used the vehicle for a period of 1½ month without any Complaint. That on 25.09.2005 and on 08.11.2005 found the breakage of front stud weal cap, leakage of oil, front weal cap damage, mileage dropping etc., and it was difficult to run the vehicle. He approached both the opponents regarding these problems; the 2nd opponent to whom the vehicle was given for attending the problems handed over the same to him without attending any problems. After 1 ½ months, after purchase, the vehicle is facing the above problems and he understood that those problems are due to manufacturing defects. Despite request to the opponents to repair or replace the vehicle have not attended to it. <br /> 3. Cause of action for the Complaint arose on the date of purchase of the vehicle and on subsequent dates and therefore has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of income and has further prayed for, to replace the vehicle by supplying a new vehicle and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and to grant such other reliefs. <br /> 4. Version said to be of both opponents signed by only one of the opponent is filed, admitting that the 1st opponent is the manufacturer and the 2nd opponent is a dealer of the vehicle supplied to the Complainant, but have denied all other allegations by further accepting the repairs that are effected to the vehicle and have contended that the Complainant himself was not driving the vehicle, allowed different drivers to drive the vehicle, that vehicle was used on rough roads for transporting crushed stones, stone slabs, cement bags etc., have denied that the defects pointed out by the complainant are due to manufacturing defects. On the other hand, have contended that because of a rough use of the vehicle, the defects have occurred even then they have rendered prompt service and therefore contended that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thereby have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 5. The complainant in support of his allegation has filed his affidavit evidence besides producing the job card, copy of the legal notice issued to the opponents. On behalf of the opponents, the Works Manager of opponent no.2 has filed his affidavit evidence. Opponent no.2 has not filed it’s affidavit evidence. The complainant and 2nd opponent in their affidavits filed in lieu of their evidence have reiterated contents of the complaint and version respectively.<br /> 6. At the instance of the Complainant, an Head of the Department of Automobile Engineering of Government CPC Polytechnic, Mysore was appointed as Court Commissioner for inspection on the vehicle in question and to give his opinion after inspecting the vehicle in connection with the defects pointed out by the complainant in accordance with the memo of instructions filed by both the parties. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner has submitted his report. The complainant filed his objection to the Court Commissioner report and for appointment of a new Court Commissioner for the same purpose. This Forum after hearing both the side rejected the objection of the complainant and also his request for appointment of another Court Commissioner and that order has not been challenged. <br /> 7. Heard the counsels for the complainant and the opponents and perused the records. <br /> 8. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the vehicle manufactured by the 1st opponent and supplied through the 2nd opponent to him is having manufacturing defects and the opponents have failed to replace it by supplying a new vehicle and thereby have caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 9. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 10. Points no. 1 & 2:- As we have pointed out above in brief; there is no controversy between the parties regarding supply of a goods carrier, manufactured by 1st opponent through the dealer the 2nd opponent to the Complainant on 18.08.2005. But, the problem arose according to the Complainant after 1 ½ months after it was put into service, the vehicle developed several problems like; leakage of oil, breakage of front stud weal cap, dropping in mileage, leakage of engine oil, breakage of driver cabin etc., and the vehicle was given to 2nd opponent for repair, which was not repaired by the 2nd opponent as per the warranty. The opponents in their version and also in the affidavit filed have denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, but have contended the defects have developed due to rough use.<br /> 11. The Court Commissioner who is shown to be an Head of the Department of Automobile Engineering of a Government CPC Polytechnic has after inspection of the vehicle even by running the vehicle through the drivers of both the parties and in the presence of both the parties has submitted his report stating that vehicle in question has already covered a distance of 25894 kms. That the vehicle is being used for carrying goods like Crushed stones, stone slabs, bricks, cement bags etc., and the vehicle is used on T.Narasipura Taluk Roads, which are badly maintained and stated that the three drivers have driven the vehicle and therefore under these circumstances, it is very difficult for him to find out manufacturing defects. <br /> 12. The complainant has not denied the purpose for which he was using the vehicle and also the conditions of roads on which it was used. This contention canvassed by the opponents in their version and pointed out by the Court Commissioner has not been denied. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant soon after he purchased the vehicle put it to use for transporting the hard objects like crushed stones, stone slabs, bricks, and cement bags etc., It is admitted by the complainant himself that the vehicle did not have any problem for a period of 1 ½ months after it was put to use. Therefore, the problems started after 1 ½ months till then. It is not the case of the complainant, he noticed any manufacturing defects or any problems in the vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle came to be inspected by the Court Commissioner when the when it started giving problems after 1 ½ months. Therefore, when the vehicle had run for distance of 25,894 kms. that to used for transporting hard objects as stated above, it is very difficult for any person to say that the defects pointed out by the complainant were of manufacturing defects or the defects developed due to improper or rough use of the vehicle. The road on which the vehicle with load was run undisputedly or rural roads badly managed with lot of path holes quite naturally the vehicle is bound to give some problems and particularly the vehicle was driven by three drivers. In that short span without knowing the skill or efficiency of those drivers. The Court Commissioner has also in his opinion stated that droppage of mileage may be due to several reasons as stated by him, which cannot be doubted. Because, the efficiency or droppage of mileage as told by him may be due to several reasons and besides that the Complainant has not come up before this Forum that opponents hard promised certain mileage and that is false. Therefore, in the absence of promised mileage given by the opponents, we cannot find any droppage on the allegation of the Complainant. The Complainant has no doubt placed certain photographs of the vehicle, which point to certain breakage and cracks in some parts of the vehicle. But, the problem is that vehicle since used for transportation of hard objects in the very bad roads and it having run for more than 24,000 kms, it is very difficult, at this stage, say that they are all manufacturing defects. Even otherwise, the Complainant has not been able to place any materials before this Forum to prove that the defects, he has pointed out in his complaint and through the photographs, he has produced are due to manufacturing defects or even due to improper servicing by opponent no.2. The opponents have in their version and also in the affidavit have stated that as and when the complainant took the vehicle for repair and servicing, they have done it promptly and that has not been denied by the complainant in the affidavit evidence. Therefore on considering the entire materials placed before this Forum we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle supplied by the opponents to him suffered manufacturing defects and the opponents have therefore rendered deficiency in their service by not replacing the vehicle. Thus, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint. As the result, we answer this point no.1 and 2 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />