Kerala

Wayanad

20/2006

Shinob - Complainant(s)

Versus

Genaral Manager - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. 20/2006
 
1. Shinob
Panamkunnel,Chootakadavu,Mananthavady
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Genaral Manager
KVR Motros,Calicut
2. Chairman, Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Poonai 411035
Poonai
Poonai
Poonai
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW Member
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-


 

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to get the vehicle repaired free from manufacturing defect or to refund the cost of the vehicle along with other expenses. The complaint was partly allowed on 22.04.2008 and thereafter the Opposite Party went on appeal to the Hon'ble State Commission and remanded back the complaint to reconsider the matter and to permit the parties to adduce further evidence as ordered on 12.11.2009 (first appeal 167/08).


 

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of RELPG 4 stroke autorikshaw at a price of Rs.1,05,840/- out of the entire amount paid by the Complainant Rs.90,000/- was a loan from the Backward Class Development Corporation. Immediately after the release of the vehicle the Complainant got in to trouble with one or other complaint. The autorikshaw which is numbered KL 12 C 1607 was taken to KVR Motors Calicut for repair. Altogether in KVR Motors Calicut itself the Complainant had to take the vehicle 3 times. The defects of the vehicle were not rectified and it is found to be persistent. As directed by KVR Motors Calicut this autorikshaw was taken to KVR Kottakkal for an expert evaluation. In none of the occasions the vehicle was rectified in road worthy condition. There was unusual sound from engine while the vehicle was plying it suddenly brake down. The plying of the vehicle became a task to this Complainant. The loan was taken from the minority corporation under self employment scheme. The expectation of the Complainant for a self employment plying the vehicle ceased to an extent. The liability on the purchase of the vehicle is mounding up.


 

3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to substitute the defective vehicle with the brand new autorikshaw. The Complainant is also to be compensated Rs.60,000/- spent for the registration and repair charges along with cost at the rate of 12%. The Complainant is also to be compensated with Rs.50,000/- towards cost and compensation.


 

4. The 1st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The brand new autorikshaw is admitted as purchased from the 1st Opposite Party. The defects alleged by the Complainant is absolutely false. The allegation as such the vehicle was brought to the office of this Opposite Party in Calicut for 3 times are false. The three periodical service were done by the Complainant. The defects which all were brought in to notice of this Opposite Party were rectified then and there itself. It is admitted that the vehicle was purchased on 08.07.2005. In the warranty period of the autorikshaw the repairs were done to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The autorikshaw was brought back by the Complainant to this Opposite Party lastly on 08.07.2005 The odometre reading at that time was 9500 to the knowledge of this Opposite Party. The Complainant was regularly plying the vehicle and of other allegation of defects are absolutely baseless.


 

5. The 2nd Opposite Party is supplemented and the sum up of the version filed by the 2nd Opposite party is as follows:- The 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the vehicle the defects to the tune of manufacturing defects are nothing but false. The periodical services and repairs were necessarily done by the party consequent to wear and tear. The warranty for the vehicle is only 180 days. The Complainant itself is out of the warranty period and in that respect alone the complaint is to be dismissed. The allegation incumbent on the complaint are fabricated and wrongly motivated. The Complainant bought the vehicle for repair plying it. It is a clear evidence that the vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect. The periodical services and other repairs necessary for the vehicle would have not to done by the Complainant and it is mistakenly represented as manufacturing defects. The service offered by the 2nd Opposite Party are prompt and without any flaw. In the use of the vehicle if a customer does not maintain the directions of the users manual that lead to complaints. The allegations of the Complainant would have been due to unattendance of the necessary repairs and services and also born out of wear and tear. The relief sort by the Complainant is to legitimize the fault of the Complainant rendering proper care to the vehicle. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.


 

6. The points in consideration are:-

  1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

  2. Relief and cost.


 

7. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Parties, Ext.A1 to A8, B1 to B5, C1 to C3 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant, 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and Expert Commission is also considered.


 

8. The dispute in issue is in respect of the autorikshaw purchased by the Complainant from the 1st Opposite Party manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party. The vehicle according to the Complainant is born with manufacturing defect. The purchase date of the vehicle was on 08.07.2005. Admittedly the vehicle is having warranty of 6 months from the date of purchase. The kilometer run on the date is 2787. Ext.B1 is the job card dated 24.08.2005. The complaints noted in the job card are abnormal sound brake slip. Apart from routine services it is pertinent to note that the brand new vehicle purchased by the Complainant ejected abnormal sound and other unusual complaints. The Opposite Party pleaded that the complaints alleged by the Complainant are incumbent on vehicle out of wear and tear. The 2nd job card dated 31.08.2005 are with complaints of gas leakage, gas not entering, tuning problems and this job card is Ext.B2. The kilometer run shown in the document is 3282. It is admitted by the Opposite parties that the warranty of the vehicle is for a period of 6 months. On 04.10.2005 the 1st Opposite Party extended the warranty up to 31.03.2006. The complainant is sent a letter by the 2nd Opposite Party which informed that one Mr.C.M. Mathew is directed to sort out the problem and resolve it which was on 14.11.2005. Before that in October 2005 thereafter on 09.01.2006 there were communication from the 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. These communications elucidate that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is having different complaints and it was timely informed to the manufacturer the 2nd Opposite Party. During this period when the vehicle was to be given all services free of charge and it was done on payment. The defects alleged by the Complainant were not rectified satisfactorily even in the extented period of warranty. The Personal Administrative Manager of 1st Opposite Party is examined as OPW2. According to him a defect if pointed out in the warranty period it is to be rectified relying on the conditions of warranty. In the oral testimony of this Opposite Party it is deposed that the defects of the vehicle alleged by the Complainant is only caused due to the usage of cooking gas. But none of the Opposite Party has such a plea and no evidence is brought out in that respect. This brand of vehicle as evidenced by this witness can ply in LPG and Petrol and vehicle of this type was introduced for the first time by the 2nd Opposite Party and manufacturing of this brand was stopped by the 2nd Opposite Party. This witness denied that the stoppage of the same brand was due to the defective manufacture. The Expert Commissioner examined the vehicle and report filed. The report date 17.07.2006 which is marked as Ext.C1 ascertains 3 defects (1) Starting trouble (2) Engine mis and occasionally abnormal sound from engine. Ext.C2 is the report on 11.08.2010 the complaints noted in this report C2. (1) The vehicle is not in running conditions (2) appearing of the vehicle indicates the vehicle is not in use from long time. (3) The kilometer reading noted 10692. The vehicle could be plied by the complainant for a period more than 5 years that is only 10692 kms. The Expert Commissioner is examined as CW1. It is evidence by this expert witness that the vehicle is not in a running condition and it was not run for a sufficient distance. According to this expert witness the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The defective vehicle sold to the Complainant is a deficiency in service and point is decided accordingly.


 

9. Point No.2:- The purchase price of the vehicle is Rs.93,876/- tax and other expenses is around Rs.1,05,840/-. The documents produced by the Complainant show that the vehicle had frequent complaint for a period of 5 years the distance run by the vehicle is considerably less. The mechanical defect of the vehicle is one of the reasons for consumption of excess oil and petrol. It is pertinent to note that the autorikshaw of the Complainant is having manufacturing defects. The Complainant purchased the vehicle as a means for his lively hood. The vehicle was plied for a distance of 10692 kms and it is disposed by the expert witness. This vehicle was kept off the road because of inherent complaints. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the particular type of vehicle is not manufactured at present. The replacing of the engine with a new engine is not possible since it is not manufactured by the Opposite Party, considering the depreciation in value and the distance run proportionate sum of the sale price is to be refunded to the Complainant.


 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are directed to give back the Complainant Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) along with cost Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only). This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant is also entitled for an interest at the rate of 10% after one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st August 2011.

Date of filing:24.10.2005.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X


 

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Shinob Complainant.

CW1. Shelly O.F. AMVI, Regional Transport Office, Kalpetta.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Jayakumar Technical Supervisor, K.V.R. Motors, Calicut.

OPW2. Joseph. K.K, K.V.R. Motors Personal Administrative Manager, Calicut.

OPW3. Hijosh, Mechanic.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Invoice. dt:08.07.2005.

A2. Extented Warranty KL 12 C 1607. dt:04.10.2005.

A3 series (3 sheets) Acknowledgment.

A4 series (4 sheets) Letter.

A5 (3 sheets) Letter.

A6 (30 Nos) Card and Phone Bills.

A7 series (2 Nos) Notice.

A8. Owner's Manual.

C1. Inspection Report dt:17.07.2006.

C2. Inspection Report. dt:11.08.2010.

C3. Inspection Report. dt:05.11.2010.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Job Card. dt:24.08.2005.

B2. Job Card. dt:31.08.2005.

B3. Copy of Job Card. dt:14.09.2005.

B4. Copy of Job Card. dt:01.10.2005.

B5. Job Card. dt:01.02.2006.

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.