KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.247/2011
JUDGMENT DATED : 27.04.2012
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
1. Tata Motors Ltd.,
(Formerly Tata Eng. & Locomotive Co. Ltd.),
R/by its General Manager,
Customer Assistant Centre,
(All India Tata Eng.) Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
Wagle Estate, Thane-400604,
Maharashtra.
2. The Manager,
Branch Office, Focuz Motors,
(Formerly Benz Motors),
(Authorised Dealer of Tata Eng. & Locomotive
Co. Ltd.) Raiban Complex, Near Income Tax-
Office, Alappuzha.
: APPELLANTS
3. The Manager,
Popular Mega Motor (I) Ltd.,
(Authorised Dealer of Tata Eng. . & Locomotive
Co. Ltd.), N.H.47, Kappakkada,
Punnapra, Alappuzha.
4. The Regional Service Manager,
Tata Motors, 4th floor,
Oxford House, Rustom Bagh Off Airport Road,
Bangalore-560 017.
5. The Manager, Area Office Service,
Tata Motors Ltd., 1st floor,
Vasudeava Building, T.D.Road,
Kochi – 682 011.
(By Adv: M/s Menon & Menon)
Vs.
1. Basheerudheen .P.M,
Polakkulam House,
Punnapra.P.O, Alappuzha.
(By Adv: Sri.R.S.Kalkura)
: RESPONDENTS
2. M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.,
Shalom Towers, NH Byepass,
Edappally, Kochi-682 024.
(By Adv:Smt.Suja Madhav)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.86/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2.lakhs as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the particular stage carriage bus from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.5,88,700/- on 16.12.2004 (sic) and for body building expended a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The fitness certificate was obtained on 9.5.2004. Soon after complaints developed. The vehicle produced heavy sound at the rear housing. Repairs were effected. Subsequently, the crown and pinion were replaced. Still the sound and shivering defects continued. After 4000 Kms the clutch rod became defective and the oil consumption increased abnormally. Subsequently, the parts of the pump and engine were replaced twice. There was also viper complaint. Many days of trips of the vehicle were lost due to frequent repairs. The lawyer notice was sent on 23.11.2004. In reply the defects are admitted by the 3rd opposite party. Although it was informed that detailed reply will be sent by the 1st opposite party no such reply was received. Complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.10,07,098/- as compensation altogether.
3. The opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 manufacturers has filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the bus has been used for commercial purpose. It is contended that whenever there was complaint the same was attended to. The abnormal sound from the rear axle was reported after 500 Kms of running. The same was repaired. Subsequently the crown wheel pinion was replaced free of charge at 26,948 Kms. The noise was within the permissible limits. The clutch rod was also replaced free of costs. The vehicle was taken back after being satisfied with the works done. Regarding the complaint of excess oil consumption the feed pump assembly was replaced by the dealer Mico under warranty and the 3rd opposite party had provided the complainant with 3 litres of engine oil and fuel filters free of charge on 23.10.2004. Only for the service at 40000 Kms the service outfit has charged Rs.2000/- The viper motor was attended at the authorized workshop of LUCAS, TVS and the complaints rectified. On 30.5.2005 on a goodwill gesture the crown wheel pinion along with Rear Propeller shaft was replaced. When the vehicle was taken to the service outfit on 26.6.2005 after having plied 103430.Kms he had no complaints. On 10.8.2005 when the vehicle was taken for service after he had plied 114103 Kms there was complaint of sound from the rear axle. The same was repaired. Thereafter the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the 3rd opposite party 4 times in the month of October, November and December for attending to running repairs as well as for oil changes. On 4.4.2006 it was taken to the 3rd opposite party after had plied 169880 Kms for certain complaints with the gear box. The same was also set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. The allegations as to the manufacturing defects are denied.
4. The 2nd opposite party has also filed version in the same lines as the version of copies 1,4 and 5.
5. The 3rd and 6th opposite parties has also filed separate version denying the allegations.
6. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, RWs 1 and 2 Exts.A1 to A22, B1 and X1.
7. The Forum has allowed the complaint on the ground that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complaints have not been properly rectified.
8. It is the contention of the appellants that the Forum has not considered the contention that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as he has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. Further it is contended that has plied more than 2.lakhs Kms and that the vehicle is put to use as a stage carrier and it is on account of the over crowding in the bus and excessive use certain problems have developed which is usual and that repairs have been effected.
9. We find that the vehicle has been purchased on 19.2.2004 as can be seen from Ext.A16 invoice. The complaint is filed on 27.3.2006. The temporary permit has been issued at first for the period from 14.10.2004 to 3.11.2004. Evidently the complaint has been filed after one year and 11 months of purchase of the vehicle.
10. As to the contention that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer although the Forum has not examined the same we find that the evidence produced would show that the complainant is the owner cum driver of the stage carriage. He has also produced Ext.A15 certificate issued by the District Executive Officer of Kerala Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Board wherein it is mentioned that he is a member of the board and he is a self-employed worker. The complainant has also produced his driving license as well as badge. In the circumstances we find the contention that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer has to be rejected.
11. Ext.X1, two reports of the commissioner has been proved by PW2 expert commissioner who has examined the vehicle. He has inspected the vehicle on 16.1.07 which would be after 2 years and 8 months of the date of purchase. The commissioner has noted the odometer reading as 204178.4 Kms. He has reported that there was an abnormal sound from the top side and that it was found that body frame is in a broken condition. The complainant has also produced another vehicle which is having a registration No.KL-04-P-7873. The registration No. of the impugned bus is KL-04-P-7873 which would show the vehicle of the complainant has been purchased subsequently. The exact difference in time between the purchase of the 2 vehicles is not evident. The commissioner has reported that travel in the other vehicles was comfortable. The commissioner has also noted that there was humming sound from the rear side when run without load at top. There will be shivering while run with load and that the same will cause joint loose. He has also reported after examining the service book that the crown and pinion was replaced. It is also reported that the gear box and overall defective parts replaced on 169880 Kms run. It is also mentioned that inspite of the above works there was shivering and humming sound which would show that the vehicle got some mechanical defects. He has also reported that the mileage is 4.5Km whereas the same type of vehicle will give 5.5Kg/litre. He has also reported that the maintenance cost of the vehicle is very high. He has also reported that the shivering while running at top gear with load will effected the joints of vehicle which may become loose and can result in unexpected accidents while running. He has also reported that the journey with this vehicle for passengers will be tedious especially for aged persons and patients.
12. It is seen that the vehicle is having warranty up to 18 months or up to 1.5 lakh Kms. The complainant has also produced a number of documents to prove that a number of times the vehicle has been subjected to repairs and amounts spent.
13. As evident from the documents produced the vehicle has run quite a number of Kms. At the time when the commissioner examined the odometer reading is 204178.4 Kms. There is also breakage of the body frame for which the manufacturer cannot be said to be responsible. All the same the report of the expert commissioner who has been proved by PW2 the expert is to the effect that the vehicle has got certain manufacturing defects and that a similar vehicle purchased earlier had no such problems. The same is an indication as to the effect that the complainant’s vehicle had certain inherent manufacturing problems and as noted by the Forum, the service outfit did not effect appropriate repairs. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the vehicle has run this much kilometers and put to use considerably, the compensation ordered to be paid has to be modified. Hence the order of the Forum to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of the order of the Forum ie 30.7.2009. The direction to pay cost of Rs.2000/- is sustained. Opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 15% from 27.04.2012, the date of this order.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VL.
