SPK sundara Kani filed a consumer case on 25 May 2016 against Balaji Autos in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 221/2010 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jun 2016.
Complaint presented on: 02.12.2010
Order pronounced on: 25.05.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
WEDNESDAY THE 25th DAY OF MAY 2016
C.C.NO.221/2010
Mr.S.P.K.Sundara Kani,
S/o.Mr.S.P.Kaliyappa Nadar,
No.15/6, Nethaji Nagar Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
1.M/s.Balaji Autos, No.25, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thangal, Chennai – 600 019.
2.Piaggio Greaves Vehicles Ltd., No.102, Phinex, Bond Garden Road, Pune – 411 001.
|
| |
.....Opposite Parties |
|
Date of complaint 09.12.2010
Counsel for Complainant : M/s. K.Seetharam
Counsel for 1st opposite Party : M/s. P.J.Rishikesh
Counsel for 2nd opposite party : M/s.C.Rekha Kumari
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant purchased a Auto Rickshaw from the 1st Opposite Party/Dealer on 15.05.2010 for a total consideration of Rs.1,65,250/- which was manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party sales personal promised that the said Auto is the best in the market and it will give 30 km per ltr. The Complainant runs the vehicle for eking his livelihood. The auto engine always goes off on closing the accelerator, engine does not start on rope pulling and the driver is developing leg pain on applying the brakes. The Complainant informed the 1st Opposite Party that the auto is giving only 12 km/ltr and he cannot run the auto for his earnings and he refused to take the delivery of the auto until it is fit to run on a reasonable mileage and hence he caused legal notice to the Opposite Parties about the deficiency in the vehicles and thereafter he filed this Complaint for refund of cost of the vehicle and for compensation with cost of the Complaint.
2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The Opposite Parties denies that the Complainant purchased the vehicle for a consideration of Rs.1,65,250/- and in fact he paid only a sum of Rs.1,49,000/-. The Opposite Parties never assured the performance of auto would give 30 km/ltr. The Complainant brought the vehicle for 1st service on completion of 1429 km reading within a span of 22 days. In average the vehicle was used 65 km per day. The Complainant approached this Hon’ble Forum with malafide intention to enrich himself and the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4.POINT NO :1
It is an admitted facts of that the Complainant purchased an Auto from the 1st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.1,49,000/- as per Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 and the said auto is manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party and the auto ran for 1429 kms during the period 01.06.2010 to 22.06.2010 which is evidenced in Ex.B8 job card.
5. The Complainant alleged deficiencies in the vehicle that the auto rickshaw is not giving 12 km per ltr, its engine always goes off on neutral and engine does not start on rope pulling and the driver developing leg pain on applying the brakes. The Complainant filed Ex.A8 pamphlet issued by the Opposite Parties in respect of the vehicle. Nowhere in the pamphlet has it been stated that the vehicle will give 30 kms per ltr. Therefore it is held that there was no assurance given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant at the time of the purchase of the auto that it will give 30km per ltr.
6. The Opposite Parties filed Ex.B8 job card that the auto was serviced with them and after service it was taken by the Complainant by subscribing his signature. The Complainant stated in his Ex.A9 notice that he requested the Opposite Parties to repair the vehicle and refused to take delivery of the auto until it is fit to run on a reasonable mileage. This statement of the Complainant leads to the conclusion that he left the vehicle with the Opposite Parties for repair. However, the Complainant has not filed any document to show that the vehicle was left with the Opposite Parties for service and the same continues to be in the hands of the Opposite Parties. The Complaint was filed in the year 2010 and the same was dismissed for default in the year 2011 and again the case was restored in the year 2015 on the intervention of the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC by its order dated 21.04.2015 . The Complainant filed C.M.P 81/2015 to send the vehicle for examination by an expert and the same was dismissed by this Forum order dated 01.12.2015 and the said order become final. Further, the Complainant has not filed any evidence to accept that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Therefore in the circumstances absolutely there is no evidence available to establish that the auto purchased by the Complainant is having manufacturing defect. Therefore in the circumstances the Complainant has not established that the auto purchased by him was having manufacturing defect or any other defect and therefore the Complainant has not proved that the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.
7.POINT NO: 2
Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25th day of May 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 02.06.2010 Service Coupon
Ex.A2 dated 31.05.2010 Electronic Auto Fare Meter
Ex.A3 dated 29.05.2010 Delivery Challan issued by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4 dated 01.06.2010 Form PC issued by Transport Dept.
Ex.A5 dated 31.05.2010 Auto R.C.Book in the name of the Complainant
Ex.A6 dated 01.06.2010 Tax Card
Ex.A7 dated 31.05.2010 Auto General Insurance
Ex.A8 dated NIL Pamphlet advertisement issued by the 1st Opposite
Party
Ex.A9 dated 07.10.2010 Complainant legal notice
Ex.A10 dated 10.11.2010 1st Opposite Party reply notice
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 dated 28.05.2010 Copy of the receipt of payment made by the
Complainant Rs.1,00,000/-
Ex.B2 dated 31.05.2010 Copy of the receipt of payment made by the
Complainant Rs.49,000/-
Ex.B3 dated 31.05.2010 Copy of details of free service
reimbursement/warranty policy
Ex.B4 dated NIL Registration certificate of the vehicle
Ex.B5 dated 31.05.2010 Copy of vehicle Insurance for the vehicle
purchaser from the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.B6 dated 01.06.2010 Copy of Tax card Tax paid to Transport
Department for the vehicle purchase from the 1st
Opposite Party
Ex.B7 dated 01.06.2010 Copy of transport permits issue by the transport
Department for the vehicle purchased from 1st
Opposite Party
Ex.B8 dated 22.06.2010 Copy of job card of 1st service done by 1st
Opposite Party wherein no major Complaints were
pointed outs.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.