DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.98/2008
Reshmi.K.V, W/o.Gopinath, Elampulavil House, Pombra(P.O), Karakurussi, Palakkad District. - Complainant (By Adv.K.K.Sreenivasan)
Vs
1. Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd., 102, Industrial Area No.1, Pithampur, Dhar (District), Madhya Pradesh. (By Adv.A.K.Muhammed Rafi)
2. The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd., K.C.Enclave, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. (By Adv.A.K.Muhammed Rafi)
3. P.S.N.Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 35/189, National Highway, Palarivattorm, Cochin. (By Adv.A.K.Muhammed Rafi)
4. PSN Automobiles, Opp. Cosmopolitan Club, 17/104, Kadamcode, Kunnathurmedu(P.O), Palakkad 678013. - Opposite parties (By Adv.A.K.Muhammed Rafi) O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Induced by the advertisement through different medias, on 22.06.2007
complainant has purchased a new Eicher Bus 10.50 manufactured by the 1st opposite party from 3rd opposite party their authorised dealer through 4th opposite party, authorised dealer of Palakkad District. She paid Rs.7,45,000/- towards the consideration of the vehicle by availing a loan from State Bank of Travancore, Sreekrishnapuram. Since complainant has no job or income she purchased the vehicle for her livelihood. Complainant submits that the opposite parties assured the best quality and performance of the vehicle. Opposite parties have not given free services even within the guarantee period. Complainant alleges that continuous complaints were caused to the bus and quality and performance of the bus is defective. When the bus is running, it shows over heating to wheel drums, recurring break downs and recurring engine missing. Due to the over heating to the wheel drums and other problems the tyres and break liners will not last. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 22-6-07 and it is used for carrying students from Alanallur to Sreekrishnapuram. Due to the defects in mechanical system, so many times the complainant took the bus to the service centre of 4th opposite party. Due to over heating, break complaints and engine missing, complainant could not run the vehicle properly. Due to the manufacturing defects of the bus it shows recurring complaints. The bus is used only for taking students from Alanallur to Sreekrishnapuram and used only for school trips. The bus is running only 65 km per day. Even then, it shows continuous troubles and defects. On various dates the complainant took the vehicle to the service centre of 4th opposite party for repairs of the inherent mechanical problems of the bus. Some times the opposite party's men came to Alanallur and cleared the troubles. Some times the vehicle was carried to Automotive Marketing Company, Calicut for repairs as per the direction of 3rd and 4th opposite parties. Complainant states that he has incurred huge amounts to arrange taxi when the bus was under repair. For the repairs of the vehicle 4th opposite party is realising huge amount on various heads. Even within the free service period i.e after 5th day of delivery of the vehicle 4th opposite party realised Rs.704/- from complainant for the change of spare parts. Now
also once in a week bus is under repair. Complainant alleges that the defects caused to the bus cannot be corrected because defects are the outcome of manufacturing problems. Complainant states that the opposite parties have legal duty to give the price of the vehicle to complainant in addition to losses and damage caused to her. Complainant issued registered notices to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle and pay damages sustained to her but opposite parties have neither cared the problems nor sent any reply. Hence the complainant is seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,45,000/- being the price of the vehicle with 12% interest from 16.06.07 till realisation, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards the losses and damage caused to the complainant, to pay Rs.55,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant, to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties.
Opposite parties entered appearance through counsel. 1st and 2nd opposite parties has not filed version. 3rd and 4th opposite parties filed version. Opposite parties averred that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in law. Further they submitted that the complainant is not a consumer. Opposite parties admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased the bus. Opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainant that continuous complaints were caused to the bus and that the quality and performance of the bus is defective. The opposite parties provided 36 months guarantee from the date of installation for engine and gear box and 12 months from the date of installation for rest of the aggregates of the vehicle irrespective of kilometerage covered during this period. The opposite parties offered three labour free services for the vehicle and so the averment of the complainant that the opposite parties did not give free services within the guarantee period is not correct. Opposite parties neither made false advertisement nor failed to offer free services. Opposite parties have not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Opposite parties submit that the
over heating of the wheel drums is common in Palakkad Area due to the frequent breaking since the roads are in a very bad state. As regards engine missing it is submitted that the complainant uses the vehicle in an area where it is very difficult to use in rainy seasons. The rough use of the vehicle is the reason for the complaints that has been actually reported. The opposite parties admit that the 4th opposite parties men used to come to Alanallur for clear out the troubles. Opposite parties have not directed the complainant to take the vehicle to Automotive Marketing Company, Calicut for repairs but the complainant herself on her own took the vehicle to Calicut. Opposite parties further submitted that Rs.704/- realised from the complainant for change of spare parts which do not come under the free service. Opposite parties submit that the complainant's vehicle does not have any manufacturing defects and hence replacement of the same is not possible. Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the complaint and this complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
Complainant filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A14 series marked on the side of complainant. Opposite parties has not filed any affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties. Commissioner's report marked as Ext.C1. Issues: Whether the vehicle supplied is a defective one? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Issues 1 & 2:
The specific case of the complainant is that the bus purchased by the complainant for carrying school children turn out to be a defective one. The vehicle has inherent manufacturing defects and cannot be properly used. Complainant has stated in the affidavit that she is running the vehicle for earning her livelihood.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.3 on 22.6.07. Within a short span of time itself, the bus developed problems is evidence from Ext.A3 series to Ext.A7 series which is documents pertaining to the complaints of the vehicle and change of spare parts and their labour charges. Complainant has taken out a commission for examining the vehicle. Commissioner after examination has filed Ext.C1 report which is in favour of the complainant. Commissioner has specifically stated that the complaints noted are inherent and only due to the manufacturing defects and it can be cured only by replacing the vehicle. Even though opposite party 3 and 4 filed version denying the allegation regarding manufacturing defect, no affidavit of any of the opposite parties were filed. Hence there is no evidence contrary to the evidence of the complainant. Opposite parties has not filed any objection to Commissioner's report also. Hence the evidence of the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result complaint allowed. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay complainant an amount of Rs.7,45,000/- being the price of the vehicle together with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation. On payment of full amount the defective vehicle shall be handed over to the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010.
Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photo copy of DD No.284812 dtd.16.06.07 for Rs.745000/- Ext.A2 – Letter issued by 3rd opposite party Ext.A3 (Series) – Invoices (3 in Nos.) Ext.A4 (Series) – Invoices Ext.A5 – Photo copy of Interactive reception check sheet Ext.A6 – Job Card Invoice dtd.18/04/08 Ext.A7 – Invoice No.07JC00673 dtd.28/05/08 Ext.A8 – Receipt No.95 dtd.31.07.07 for Rs.7000/- issued by C.P.Tours & Travels Ext.A9 – Trip sheet for contract carriage No.28 Ext.A10 – Cash receipt issued by Lakshmi Auto Parts dtd.02.01.09 Ext.A11 - Brochure Ext.A12 – Paper cutting Ext.A13 – Copy of letter dtd.16.06.08 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party Ext.A14 (Series) – Cash bills Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Nil Ext.C1 – Commissioner's report Costs (Not allowed | 
