KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.624/09 JUDGMENT DATED 29.3.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT Tata Motors Ltd. Passenger Car Business Unit, 3rd Floor, TutusTowers, -- APPELLANT N.H.Byepass Road, Padivattom, Kochi – 682024. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar & Ors.) Vs. Dr.A.P.Philip, S/0 Philipose, Aruthamala House, (Elangipuram House) -- RESPONDENT Kochera P.O,Vandanmedu, Idukki District. (By Adv.Bhasurendran Nair & 0rs) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties under orders to replace the Indigo car with a fresh car of the same category or to pay Rs.4,43,933/- and Rs.2,000/- towards costs in CC.209/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the car on 15.9.08 and that on 4.10.08 the vehicle had a break down. The break and steering control of the car were lost and the passengers had a miraculous escape. The vehicle was taken to an authorized workshop. The defect stated is that it was on account of slipping of alternator belt and also due to leakage of steering fluid. On 28.10.08 also the vehicle had the same problem and himself and his wife just escaped from a serious accident. The car was taken to the authorized service center. They have sought for replacement of the vehicle or return of the value of the same. 3. The opposite parties 1and 2 the manufactures and the dealers filed separate versions. They have pleaded ignorance as to the break down alleged on 4.10.08. It is pointed out on 6.10.08 the vehicle was brought to the dealer for free service at 1371 kilometers. At the time nothing was mentioned about the alleged complaints. On 31.10.10, the vehicle was collected by the dealer from the authorized service station at Kattappana. The reason for the defect is a small leak from the power steering feed hose due to mounting clip becoming loose. The above defect has been rectified. It is asserted that there is no manufacturing defect. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, DW1, Exts. P1 to P9 and R1 to R4. 5. It is pointed out the counsel for the appellant that there is no expert evidence in the matter as contemplated under Section 13 (1) ( c) of the C.P. Act. It is pointed out that PW3 the AMVI who has been examined as expert has not examined the vehicle. His deposition are answers on hypothetical problems. It is pointed out that the vehicle is a brand new one and within 2 months of purchase the same has been abandoned at the authorized workshop (the vehicle was purchased on 15.9.08 and handed over at the authorized workshop on 28.10.08. Hence in the absence of expert evidence as to the manufacturing defects there cannot be a total replacement. Further, for the defects of a particular part the entire vehicle cannot be replaced. 6. I find that expert evidence is required in the matter. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to depute an expert commission to examine the vehicle and file a report and dispose of the matter on the basis of the evidence of the expert and further evidence if any adduced. 7. Matter will stand posted before the Forum on 29.5.2010. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
