IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 122/09 (Filed on 05.09.2009)Between: V.K. George, Bethel, Annavattom, Kuttapuzha P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. .... Complainant. And: 1. General Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune. 2. Service Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Krishna Kripa, 39/3584, KSN Menon Road, Cochin – 682 016. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: On 26.02.2004 the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Autorickshaw from Geo Motors, Pathanamthitta, the authorised dealer of the first opposite party. It was registered in the name of the complainant as Reg. No.KL-03K-1460 with R.T.O., Thiruvalla. The complainant purchased this vehicle by believing the advertisement made by the first opposite party regarding the durability, efficiency and other qualities of the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was ` 1,09,250. After purchasing the vehicle, the vehicle was used as per the directions given in the Owners Manual and has been driven by the efficient and competent drivers with valid licence. Even though the vehicle met with mechanical defect frequently. 3. On 30.08.2005, while the vehicle was proceeding to Thiruvalla from Pathanamthitta after repairing from the workshop, the crank case is broken and the vehicle was in the workshop for 13 days. Thereafter, on 24.11.2005, 17.12.05, 24.1.06, the vehicle was taken to the workshop and repaired it. A roaring sound on starting is seen at the time of purchase itself. But this defect is repaired only after all free services on payment of ` 1,615. On 20.01.09 the vehicle again taken to the Geo Motors for the some mechanical problem and repaired it. Thereafter on 25.3.09 the engine could not move then the vehicle was taken to the authorised workshop at Changanassery and kept there for 23 days awaiting for the approval from company for repair. After rectifying this defect on 17.8.09 the vehicle could not move or plied then it was toed to authorised dealer at Changanassery. After examining the vehicle the service person informed that there is some mechanical problems to the engine. For repairing the engine the complainant had to spend a sum of ` 7,000. 4. All the above said repairing was brought to the notice of the company. Having convinced about his grievances the company compensated him to some extent. The company is liable to fully compensate him the repairing charges paid by him. For all the repairing he had paid an amount of ` 24,700 as repairing charges. The complainant claims that the opposite parties are liable to pay this amount to him with compensation. As all the defects of the vehicle were date by date corresponded to the company there is no bar for limitation to this complaint. In the circumstances, the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to pay ` 28,700 as the repairing charge paid by the complainant along with cost to the complainant. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 5. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions. The main contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant has filed this complaint after more than five years from the purchase of the vehicle. The complaint of the vehicle was firstly come only after the expiry of the warranty i.e. on 24.11.05. The dealer from whom service for the vehicle was obtained is not impleaded as a party in this complaint. When the complainant complaining manufacturing defect of the vehicle an expert report to prove the manufacturing defect is essential. All the above said grounds the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the complainant deliberately concealed the continuous use of the vehicle and has not mentioned the kilometer reading of the vehicle. All these facts clearly proves that the complainant come before this Forum without clear hands. This complaint is filed only to harass the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost to them. 6. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 marked for the complainant. For the opposite parties, proof affidavit filed by the authorised agent of opposite parties. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties. After closure of the evidence both sides heard. 8. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased an autorickshaw manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 26.2.04. The vehicle showed mechanical problem on 30.8.05 and 24.11.05. The vehicle has repaired by the authorised service centre and the company compensated him ` 5,651. Then the vehicle had run about 42769 kms. Thereafter the vehicle had repaired six times for mechanical problems till 17.4.09. All the repairing was informed the opposite parties through the letters by the complainant. But there is no reply from them. The complainant alleged that the continuous mechanical defect of the autorickshaw is due to the manufacturing defect and he spend an amount of ` 28,700 as repairing charges. Hence he filed this complaint for getting the relief as sought for in the complaint. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 marked. Ext.A1 is the letter-dated 12.11.05 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party informing the mechanical defect of the complainant’s vehicle. Ext.A1(a) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the letter-dated 24.10.07 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2(a) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A2 signed by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter-dated 16.2.09 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. Ext.A4(a) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A4. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter-dated 17.4.09 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.A5(a) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. Ext.A6 is the Owners Manual of Bajaj Auto Ltd. The opposite parties counsel has been cross-examined PW1. 10. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is barred by limitation. The manufacturing defect of the vehicle is alleged after 5 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The defect of the vehicle firstly complained only after the use of 1½ years. Further contentions of the opposite parties is that the warranty period of the vehicle is expired. There is no expert report for proving the defects of the vehicle. The dealer from where he purchased the vehicle is not impleaded in the party array. 11. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties the authorised representative of opposite parties filed a proof affidavit stating their contentions. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of them. 12. The defect of the vehicle noted firstly after 1 ½ years of the purchase of the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle damaged continuously and the continuous damages were informed to the opposite parties. Ext.A1 to A5 series clearly shows that the complainant had communicated all the defects when he repaired. The cause of action of this complaint arose continuously. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation is unsustainable. 13. On going through the evidences in this case, on a perusal of Ext.A6 Owners Manual shows that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 26.2.04. As per the warranty certificate the manufacturing company offers replace or repair at their authorised workshop, free of charges within a period of 180 days and unlimited kilometers covered during 180 days on its “RE Diesel Goods Carrier” from the date of sale of the vehicle to the 1st owner, such part or parts there of as may be found, on examination, to have manufacturing defect. The complainant admitted that in connection with mechanical problem that occurred on 30.8.05, i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period the company compensated him ` 5,651. The opposite parties have admitted the communications made by the complainant regarding his vehicle and on all occasions they have in goodwill given reasonable rebate in his repairing bills. 14. It is pertinent to note that the complainant does not says what is the exact damages of his vehicle. Moreover the damage of the vehicle firstly complained only after 1 ½ years of the use of the vehicle. The exact kilometerage that the vehicle had run is not stated by the complainant. It is true that the complainant had filed this complaint only after 5 years from the purchase of the vehicle. After 3 years the damage to axle was alleged. On 25.3.09 the complainant alleges the starting trouble and less pick up. These complaints may cause overloading or rash driving or other causes. The constant use of the vehicle may cause mechanical trouble. In this case, the complainant alleged that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. If there is an allegation of manufacturing defect of the vehicle the complainant should have prove it with an expert opinion. The burden of proof lies with the complainant to prove the manufacturing defects of his vehicle he alleged it. There is no such expert report produced by the complainant for proving the manufacturing defect. Without an expert evidence, the allegation of the manufacturing defect of the complainant’s vehicle is not sustainable. Moreover, this allegation is raised only after the use of the vehicle for 1 ½ years. From the pleadings it can see that the opposite parties had taken a lenient view for redressing the complainant’s grievances. The complainant has not made any allegation about the repairing of the vehicle done by the authorised workshop of the opposite parties. In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : V.K. George Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the letter dated 12.11.05 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. A1(a) : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A1. A2 : Letter dated 24.10.07 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. A2(a) : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. A3 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A2 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. A4 : Photocopy of letter dated 16.2.09 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. A4(a) : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A4. A5 : Photocopy of letter dated 17.4.09 sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. A5(a) : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. A6 : Owners Manual of Bajaj Auto Ltd. issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) V.K. George, Bethel, Annavattom, Kuttapuzha P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. (2) General Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune. (3) Service Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Krishna Kripa, 39/3584, KSN Menon Road, Cochin – 682 016. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
