IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of October, 2009
Filed on 11.06.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.121/08
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.K.Haridas, 1. TATA Motors Ltd.,
S/o Kunjukrishnan Nair, Represented by its General Manager,
Residing at Ayodhya, TATA Motors, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marge,
Keerikkadu.P.O., Pattiyoorkala, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604,
Pattiyoor Village, Karthikappally Taluk Maharashtra.
(By Adv.V.Krishna Menon)
[Represented by his wife]
2. Popular Mega Motors (India Ltd),
Smt.Shashikala, Kappakada, Punnapra.P.O.,
W/o K.Haridas, Alappuzha,
Residing at Ayodhya, Represented by its Manager.
Keerikkadu.P.O., Pattiyoorkala, (By Adv. P.V.Satheesh)
Pattiyoor Village, Karthikappally Taluk.
(By Adv.Mohammad Basheer)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant purchased a Tata model 1109 bus bearing No.KL 4- U1021 from the opposite party. The complainant purchased the said vehicle on being drawn by the enticing advertisement the opposite party disseminated in the prominent dailies. The said vehicle was procured for the purpose of plying the same as private bus service in Prayar- Viyapuram route to eke out a livelihood for him. Since its purchase, the vehicle developed defect and imperfection. Every now and then, the complainant had to take the vehicle to the garages for repair. The very first day of its running, the silencer of the bus got detached. A few days later, the brake system of the bus collapsed. The passengers of the bus were inconvenienced and they had to resort to alternative means to continue their journey. That apart there was frequent failure of oil injection and fuel injection systems. The repairing of the bus was being effected in the authorized service centre M/S. Choice Automotives and Engineering works at Ochira. The complainant duly informed the opposite party as to the frequent failure of the vehicle vide letter dated 20th August 2006. Consequently, the opposite party assured the complainant that the grievance of the complainant would be promptly addressed. Except the said assurance the opposite party did nothing towards this. Thereafter, the complainant caused to send a legal notice dated 11th March 2008 to the opposite party. Still the opposite party was disinclined to take any steps. The commissions and omissions of the opposite party brought huge monetary and mental woes to the complainant. During the course of the warranty itself the complainant had to invest Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only). Even thereafter, the complainant had to incur an amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) on the aforesaid count. The complainant was constrained to abandon trips of more than 74 days. To this point too, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.144000/-(Rupees one lac forty four thousand only). There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties inflicted indescribable mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant is not a consumer as well. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties further contend that the complainant never approached any of their authorized service centers to get his vehicle repaired. The complainant at no point of time brought to the opposite parties’ notice the alleged impairments namely the failure of oil injection assembly, oil injection system and the defect as to the turbo mouth of the silencer. The defects brought to the notice of the authorize service centers of the opposite parties are virtually slighter and were duly attended to. The complaint is with out any bonafides and oblique. The same is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties forcefully argue.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, their area service manager was examined as RWl.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(l) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(2) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
(3) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
4. We perused the materials placed on record by the parties. Primarily, the opposite parties contend that the complainant is nor a consumer, and further the complaint is barred by limitation. Keeping these contentions in view, we meticulously went through the complaint and the affidavit the complainant filed. It appears that with particular stress the complainant avers in the complaint that he purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties to conduct bus service in Prayar- Viyapuram route for a livelihood. From the very first day of its trip the bus displayed defects and service of several days came to a halt. The complainant took the failure of the vehicle from time to time to the notice of the opposite parties. Exbts A4 notice dated 20th August 2006 and A5 legal notice dated 11th March 2008 put on record by the complainant bear testimony to this. In view of this, we regret, we are unable to accept both the contentions of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is barred by limitation.
5. Coming down to the crux of the complainant case that the vehicle purchased from the opposite parties developed impairment from its very first day of the trip and afterward that caused inexplicable mental and monetary woes to the complainant, we anxiously analyzed the entire evidence let in by the parties. It appears that at one point, the opposite parties contend that the complainant never approached their authorized service center to deal with any defect of the material vehicle. On the other stage, the opposite parties’ case is that the defects the complainant pointed out as to the said vehicle was trivial in character, and they were accordingly attended to by the opposite parties authorized service centre. The opposite parties version appears self-contradictory to this aspect. In this context, we are persuaded to draw an inference in favor of the complainant that the vehicle in question developed imperfection every now and then, and the complainant brought the same to the opposite parties’ notice. The complainant case is that during the course of the warranty itself the complainant had to invest Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) on the vehicle to cure its defects. Even thereafter, the complainant had to incur an amount of Rs.20000/-( Rupees twenty thousand only) on the aforesaid count. The complainant was constrained to abandon trips of more than 74 days. To this point too, the complainant sustained a loss of 144000/-(Rupees one lac forty four thousand only). It is worthwhile to note that no evidence worth a piece of paper is forthcoming to show before us that the complainant had to throw away bus service for 74 days and sustained consequential loss thereof. However, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant had to expend handsome amount as claimed by him to revamp the vehicle time and again. The said shortcomings of the vehicle developed from the very first day suggest that the vehicle in question was inherently defective. Refusal of the opposite parties to reimburse the amount the complainant had to incur to get the vehicle patched up obviously implies deficiency of service.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80000/-(Rupees eighty thousand only) the complainant had to incur to get his vehicle repaired. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and another amount of Rs.l000/-(Rupees thousand only) as cost. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.Haridas (Witness)
Ext. A1 Series - The Original Bills for the repairing charges of the vehicle
Ext.A2 - The copy of the notice issued by the Secretary, RTA, Alappuha dated,
30.01.2007
Ext. A3 - The copy of the Regd. Letter issued to the complainant dated, 01.09.2006
Ext. A4 - The copy of the Regd. Letter issued by the dated, 20.08.2006
Ext. A5 - The copy of the Legal Notice dated, 11.03.2008
Ext. A6 - The Postal Receipt
Ext. A7 - The Acknowledgment Card.
Ext. A8 - The Operators Service Book
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Biju Joseph (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
