IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2015
Filed on 5.01.2010
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.04/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. L. Vinod 1. Dealer, West Cost Engineering
Aalachira Veedu Valiachudukadu, Alappuzha
Kodamthuruthu
Kuthiyathodu P.O. 2. The Branch Office, West Cost
Alappuzha District Engineering, Raveendra Shenai
(By Adv. B.Somanadha Kurup) Building, Pattanakkadu, Cherthala
(By Adv. B. Gireesh – for opposite
parties 1 and 2)
3. The Managing Partner
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
34/11-28, Balakrishna Menon Road
Idappally P.O., Cochin – 682 024
(By Adv. Jayan. C. Das)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 28.02.2011 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased an autorikshaw from the opposite parties for Rs.1,49,000/-. Complainant is an Autorikshaw driver and for the purpose of his livelihood, he purchased the vehicle. While delivering the vehicle, opposite party assured the complainant that there will be 24 months warranty for the all items of his vehicle. But within 6 months from the date of purchase, defect occurred due to the damage of the tyre. When the tyre and tube were inspected by an expert and he opined that the defects were occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the tyre and tube. Complainant contacted the opposite parties several times. But there was no result. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
Complainant entrusted the vehicle for the service on 6.6.2009 and after repairing the vehicle was taken by the complainant with full satisfaction. On 20.7.2009 complainant entrusted the vehicle for brake light checking, engine oil, oil filter, cable checking and it was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant on that day itself. Complainant entrusted the vehicle on 19.9.2009, 6.11.2009, 20.11.2009 and all the demands of the complainant were satisfied by the opposite parties. Complainant never reported any complaints as alleged in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
3. The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The third opposite party never had any transaction with the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the third opposite party. The allegation that the complainant had advertisement and has cheated the complainant is false and hence denied. The averment made to the effect that the tyre go to worn and tube got punchered is not correct. The allegation that the cable used in the Autorikshaw got deteriorated and was broken on several occasions causing hardships to the complainant is made without any merit. Complainant had taken away the vehicle satisfactorily after each service, acknowledging that is fully satisfied with the service and repairing the work done by the opposite parties 1 and 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A19. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B7. The expert commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased the vehicle on 19.5.2009 from the opposite parties. According the complainant, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, opposite parties assured that there will be 24 months warranty for all items of his vehicle. But opposite parties contended that the vehicle has only six months warranty. In order to prove that allegation the opposite parties have produced owner’s manual and it was marked as Ext.B1. As per Ext.B1 the warranty of the vehicle of the complainant is for 180 days from the date of purchase. According to the complainant his vehicle had so many defects. In order to prove this allegation an expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. As per the Ext.C1 report, the vehicle had engine oil leaking, tyres were damaged due to the defective wheel alignment, the seat cover and seat plywood were a low quality, iron screws were rusted due to the low quality. He also reported that he was not sure about the tyre tube used in the vehicle is belong to the said vehicle. Even though, opposite parties filed objection to the commission report, no steps taken to examine the expert. Apart from that Ext.B3 the job card dated 6.6.2009, Ext.B4 job card dated 20.7.2009, Ext.B5 job card dated 19.9.2009 show that the complainant made complaints repeatedly regarding the engine oil leaking. More over in the version also opposite parties admitted that the complainant entrusted the vehicle in service on 19.7.2009, 20.7.2009, 19.9.2009 and 30.11.2009. From the above discussions, it is clear that the vehicle which purchased on 19.5.2009 had sustained defects within a short time of purchase. As per the Ext.C1 report, the defects of the vehicle still existing. Hence it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to rectify those defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. The defects occurred within a short time of purchase surely caused much inconveniences and hardships and financial difficulties to the complainant. Hence it is compensated by the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects stated in the Ext.C1 report to the satisfaction of the complainant and return it within 2 weeks. The complainant is also directed to hand over the vehicle to the opposite parties within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vinod. L. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the receipt
Ext.A2 - Copy of the invoice dated 6.6.2009
Ext.A3 - Copy of the invoice dated 19.9.2009
Ext.A4 - Copy of the invoice dated 30.11.2009
Ext.A5 - Copy of the invoice dated 16.1.2010
Ext.A6 - Copy of the acknowledgement dated 16.1.2010
Ext.A7 - Copy of the invoice dated 3.3.2010
Ext.A8 - Copy of the acknowledgement dated 3.3.2010
Ext.A9 - Copy of the invoice dated 4.3.2010
Ext.A10 - Copy of the acknowledgement dated 4.3.2010
Ext.A11 - Copy of the invoice dated 31.3.2010
Ext.A12 - Receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A13 - Copy of the invoice dated 4.5.2010 for Rs.134/-
Ext.A14 - Copy of the invoice dated 4.5.2010 for Rs.226/-
Ext.A15 - Copy of the Sale bill dated 5.5.2010
Ext.A16 - Copy of the bill for Rs.38/-
Ext.A17 - Copy of the invoice dated 6.7.2010 for Rs.133/-
Ext.A18 - Copy of the invoice dated 6.7.2010 for Rs.845/-
Ext.A19 - Copy of the Certificate of Registration
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Antony M. John (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Owners Manual
Ext.B2 - Customer information card
Ext.B3 - Job card dated 6.6.2009
Ext.B4 - Job card dated 20.7.2009
Ext.B5 - Job card dated 19.9.2009
Ext.B6 - Job card dated 30.11.2009
Ext.B7 - Copy of the certificate dated 29.11.2010
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
