BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 18^th day of September 2018

                                                                                       Filed on : 29.03.2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                              President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                            Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                  Member.

                               CC.No.193/2016

                                     Between 

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

  The complainant had purchased a Chevrolette Sail 1.2 LS ABS car with engine No.10CXDZ 130770380 and Chasis No.BA6SFDC2DDT 006805 from Geeyam Motors Pvt. Ltd. Kayamkulam in the 1^st week of April 2013 after taking KSFE Employees’ Special Car loan.  The loan was availed from KSFE Evening Unit in which the complainant is presently working in the capacity of Special Grade Assistant.  The on-road cost of the vehicle was Rs.6,41,525/- and 1% vat extra applicable from April 2013 onwards.  The loan was sanctioned under salary deduction scheme and the complainant remitted the EMIs of Rs.8,978/- for 84 months.  The vehicle showed starting trouble on many occasions and left on the road owing to this reason after running just below 5000 kms so far. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the part of the vehicle was replaced thrice but it still develops the same problem. The complainant entrusted his vehicle almost three months and one month at Kottayam and Nettoor showrooms to find out the exact reason of the problem in the car, but the very same complaint still exists. They inspected and drove the vehicle several kilometers for determining the actual cause of the trouble but they were unable to issue a fitness certificate.  The complainant had requested several times and reported the matter to their head office but it seems that nothing has been done properly.  It was about 4 months ago the vehicle developed starting trouble and all the efforts done by the opposite parties were in vain. Though the matter was reported to the Nettoor showroom immediately, the complainant so for not received any reply.  The complainant tried to contact their higher officials through advocate, but they did not even attend the phone calls. It is submitted that all the above defects happened due to the manufacturing defects of the disputed vehicle supplied by the opposite party and the above said acts of the opposite party amounted to gross deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the entire cost of the vehicle with interest to the complainant. He also sought for compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2)       Version of the opposite parties

The opposite parties filed their version beyond the statutory period of 45 days. Since the version was filed belatedly, it is not considered.

3)       Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidences adduced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to Exbt.A4.  No oral evidence adduced by both parties.  The opposite parties have furnished no documentary evidence in support of their version filed.

4)       Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1.  Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2.  Whether the complainant has proved any manufacturing defect in the     vehicle purchased by him?
3.  Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the disputed vehicle along with interest to the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of  the proceedings from the opposite parties?

5)       Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

Exbt.A1 is the registration certificate of the disputed vehicle- LMV Motor Park 1500 which shows that the complainant Bobby Mathew is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is hypothecated to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Evening Unit 213, Kottayam.  Exbt.A2 is the purchase invoice No.201300010 dated 04.04.2013 which would show that the vehicle was purchased for Rs.5,85,528/-.  Exbt.A3 series are the job cards issued by the 3^rd opposite party -Geeyem Motors. Exbt.A4 is the copy of the demand draft for Rs.641528/- issued to Geeyem Motors Pvt. Ltd towards the value of the disputed vehicle. The disputed car was purchased after availing special car loan of Rs.641528/- from KSFE Ltd. Evening Unit Kottayam and EMI amount was fixed at Rs.8978/- for 84 months.  The case of the complainant is that the vehicle developed starting trouble on various occasions even before running 5000kms and even after several inspections of the vehicle by the Nettoor Show room, the Show room people were not willing to issue a fitness certificate. It is submitted by the complainant that he had requested the show room personnels to report to the Head office about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle but they did not do anything to the matter. About 4 months before filing this complaint the vehicle showed starting trouble and all the efforts to start the vehicle ended in vain. Hence the complainant is filed this complaint before this Forum alleging that the vehicle supplied is suffering from inherent manufacturing defects.  Therefore, he has requested this Forum to issue directions to the opposite parties to refund the entire cost of the vehicle together with compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and for breach of trust made by the opposite parties.  The complainant also sought for a direction from this Forum to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. We have gone through the evidences furnished and complaints raised by the complainant.  In this case the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that the disputed vehicle is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. In the absence of any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect if any, of the vehicle we are not in a position to allow the claim of the complainant to refund the purchase value of the disputed vehicle.  Moreover, the complainant by his letter dated 13.08.2018 submitted that the vehicle has not developed any starting trouble for the last one year.   Therefore, the (i) and (ii) issues are decided against the complainant for the reasons stated above.   

6)       Issue No. (iii) and (iv)

Having found the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue No. (iii) and (iv).

In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed and accordingly this complaint stands dismissed.

          Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of September 2018.

                                                                   Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                                   Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                                   Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:          Nil

Date of Despath     ::

                By Hand ::

                By Post           ::