BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 105/2003 Filed on 07..03..2003

Dated: 15..06..2010

Complainant:

A. Bahuleyan Nair, Althara Veedu, Aruvikkuzhy, Veeranakavu – P.O., Kattakkada, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. D. Padmini Rose)

Opposite parties:

1. Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune – 35.

(By Adv.S. Ajith)

This O.P having been heard on 10..12..2009, the Forum on 15..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant purchased a Bajaj 4 stroke Autorickshaw from the 1^st opposite party on 26/09/2000 for Rs. 70,499/- and duly registered the vehicle vide registration No.KL-01/T-2322, that at the time of purchasing the said vehicle, 1^st opposite party assured that the vehicle will get more mileage and less repairing than 3 stroke autorickshaw and given 6 months warranty also. It is submitted by the complainant that from the very beginning of the purchase, the said vehicle got 20km mileage contrary to the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party, that thereafter the running condition of the vehicle became poor, worse and arose more repairing, that original spare parts were not available in the market and available spare parts are of high cost. Opposite parties are liable to cure the defects of the vehicle even after repeated requests, opposite parties failed to do so. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to rectify the defects of the vehicle and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version conending that the vehicle manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd is having wide market acceptance throughout India, that the vehicle manufactured is of high quality and standard and is of defect free, that the company is providing wide service net work to support the purchasers of the vehicle manufactured by them, that complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial use, that he is plying the vehicle to various drivers on rent, therefore he has no locus standi to file this complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed. 2^nd opposite party is providing a warranty of 120 days from the date of purchase or 5500kms which ever occurs earlier to the three wheelers manufactured by them, that the opposite parties never assured any mileage to the vehicle as alleged. There is no basis for the allegation and it is only an afterthought, the allegation that the opposite party agreed to replace battery are absolutely false and baseless. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties never done any unfair trade practice as alleged. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)Whether the vehicle has developed manufacturing defects within the warranty period?

2. Whether the defects, if any found, are repairable?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant purchased a Bajaj 4 stroke Autorickshaw from the 1^st opposite party on 26/09/2000 for Rs. 70,499/- and duly registered the vehicle vide registration No.KL-01/T-2322. It has been the case of the complainant that at the time of purchasing the vehicle, the 1^st opposite party assured that the said vehicle will get more mileage and less repairing than 3 stroke autorickshaw and given 6 months warranty also. It has also been the case of the complainant that from the very beginning of the purchase, vehicle got 20km mileage only contrary to the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party, that thereafter the running condition of the vehicle became poor worse and arose more repairing, original spare parts were not available in market and available spare parts are of high cost. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that opposite parties never intimated that the vehicle is having 6 months warranty, that opposite party is providing warranty for 120 days from the date of purchase or 5500kms whichever occurs earlier to the three wheelers manufactured by them, that opposite party never assured any mileage to two vehicle as alleged, that the complainant was given the specified battery along with the vehicle and that the vehicle was not having any repairs as alleged. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 26/9/2000 for Rs. 70,499.52 issued by 1^st opposite party. Ext. P2 is the copy of the certificate of Registration. Ext. P3 is the copy of the notice issued by the Manager, SBT. Ext. P4 series include workshop bills issued by Deedi Automobiles, Kaimonam and other bills issued by Amba Automobiles, Amruth Auto Spares and Care Bajaj. On perusal of invoices issued by Deedi Automobiles, it is seen that Deedi Automobiles received Rs. 60/- on 12/6/2001 towards carburatter cleaning, Rs. 126/- on 7/7/01 towards outside job works, Rs. 30/- on 20/08/2001 towards labour charges, Rs. 370/- on 26/11/01 towards outside job works, decarbounizing and clutch cable check up, Rs. 140/- complainant has not furnished warranty card and manual issued by opposite parties. Ext. C1 is the Commission Report. As per Ext.C1 commissioner inspected the vehicle on 20/03/2004 that is after 3 years 5 months and 20 days from the date of purchase. It is reported by the commissioner in his report that the job cards of the vehicle was not submitted by the 1^st opposite party, that A 14 AH battery is not sufficient for the electric system, rather a 32 AH battery is required to be provided for the vehicle, thus he found a manufacturing (design) defect, that since vehicle could not start further checks like mileage test, engine performance etc....not conducted. It is further reported by the Commissioner that normally a 173.5 CC4 stroke petrol engine is inadequate for a three-wheeler, since its engine develops more heat and consumes more oil, thus he found manufacturing (design) defect. Further, the clutch system of 4 stroke Bajaj three wheeler is not service oriented. This will cause higher time for clutch plates, high labour costs etc compared to a 2 stroke three wheeler. Opposite parties filed objection to Commission Report. Commissioner has been cross examined by opposite parties. Commission, in his cross examination, has deposed that he had gone through the Instruction manual wherein 14 AH battery is prescribed for the vehicle in dispute. When asked: “ 4 stroke diesel engine-ന് ഈ battery അല്ലേ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നത് (Q) അത് മാറ്റിക്കൊടുത്ത കേസ്സുകളും ഉണ്ട്. അതിന് രേഖ ഒന്നും ഇല്ല. ഈ വണ്ടിക്കും മാറ്റിക്കൊടുക്കാം എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു Bajaj അയച്ച കത്ത് complainant എന്നെ കാണിച്ചിരുന്നു . Original battery അല്ല അതില്‍ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നത് . “Commissioner has not furnished such a letter alleged to have seen by him along with his report nor has complainant furnished the same before this Forum. In his cross examination, Commissioner has admitted that the vehicle has been approved by Automatic Research Association of India (ARAI). Design ARAI approve ചെയ്താലേ വണ്ടി റോഡില്‍ ഇറങ്ങു എന്നുപറയുന്നു (Q) design അതില്‍ ഉള്‍പ്പെടുന്നില്ല (A). Commissioner has deposed in his cross examination that there was 'Varroc Electric Starter Motor in the alleged vehicle, that normally the type of motor may not be prescribed in the specification. He has deposed further that 'Varroc' has been one of the suppliers of the Bajaj Company when asked: കുറച്ചുനാള്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കാതെb idle ആയി ഇട്ടിരിക്കുന്ന വണ്ടി പെട്ടെന്ന് എടുത്താല്‍ start ആകുമോ (Q) That depends on conditions. Battery down ആവുന്ന പ്രശ്നമില്ല “. Report –ല്‍ പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നcomplainant പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ എന്ന നിലയില്‍ എഴുതിയതിന് ആധികാരികമായ രേഖ report നോടൊപ്പം ഹാജരാക്കിിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇല്ല. മഹസ്സര്‍ ഹാജ രാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട് (A). Complainant has not furnished any document showing the mileage if any advertised by the opposite parties, nor he furnished any document to show 6 months warranty assured by opposite parties. It is further to be pointed out that complainant has not furnished any material to show timely service was made in the vehicle. In his cross examination, though complainant agreed to furnish the said records, which was not furnished before us. Further, complainant has no case that the vehicle has been permanently serviced by the authorised service centre of the opposite parties. On perusal of Ext. P4 series (workshop bills) no major works is seen done by opposite parties except the normal works in due course of running of the vehicle. Further it is seen from Ext. P4 series that complainant had availed the service of Deedi Workshop only upto 26/11/2001. Thereafter, services in the vehicle are done by other workshops. It is further to be pointed out that there is no whisper in the Commission Report when did, complainant replace the alleged defective battery, whether that was done within the period of warranty and in whose workshop such replacement was done; As per Ext. P4 series (page 5) one battery 12v sport is seen bought for Rs. 775/- from AMBA Automobiles on 29/12/2001 which is after one year from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Nowhere in the complaint is it seen alleged any significant manufacturing defect except mileage, and battery problems etc for which there is no material to show the assurance alleged if any offered by opposite parties. There is nothing in the Commission Report whether the vehicle in dispute has been maintained or not during this period. As per evidence available on record, from 11/01, onwards repair work has been done outside of the authorised workshop, thereby the report of the Commissioner that job cards were not provided by opposite parties has no relevance. Nor has complainant a specific case that the vehicle developed troubles which were not cured by opposite parties during the warranty period or prior to 11/2001. Design defect in the vehicle pointed out by the commission cannot be treated as manufacturing defect, since manufacturing defect of the vehicle comes only after designing. The onus of establishing the case would rest on the complainant. Complainant failed to establish deficiency on the part of opposite parties. In view of the above, we find complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of June, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.

O.P.No.105/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : A. Bahuleyan Nair

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of the bill dated 26/09/2000 for Rs. 70,499.52 issued by 1^st opposite party.

P2 : " certificate of Registration

P3 : " notice dated 7/01/2003

P4 : Series include workshop bills issued by opposite party

P5 : Copy of the certificate of Registration

P6 : " permit in respect of a contract carriage

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

V. Court witness:

CW1 : Thomas A. Vadakkan

VI. Court Exhibit :

C1 : Commission Report

PRESIDENT