KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.1090/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 3.6.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kollan in OP.No.584/2000 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/S Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Akurdi, : APPELLANT Pune represented by it’s authorised Representative and Senior Service Engineer, Mr.P.S.Menon. (By Adv.C.P.Bhadrakumar) Vs. 1. K.Daniel, Nirmithi, Vilakkupara, Eroor, Kollam. : RESPONDENTS 2. M/S Smoothsell, P.B.No.291, Pullikkada, Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party in OP.584/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.75000/- for engine overhauling and other repairs and also to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Bajaj Matador pickup vehicle purchased by him on 3.10.96 developed serious mechanical defects immediately after the purchase of the vehicle itself. The vehicle was brought to the service centre of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was pressing for replacement. The complainant sent complaints to the 1st opposite party manufacturer. 1st opposite party inspected the vehicle and informed that there is manufacturing defects to the vehicle. The allegation is that vehicle is having manufacturing defects and that he had to take the vehicle repeatedly to the workshop but the condition of the vehicle remained the same. 3. The 1st opposite party has filed version that the opposite party is not liable as the complainant had altered the vehicle without any authorization and converted it into a delivery van. The condition of the engine deteriorated on account of over loading, improper handling, unauthorized conversion and road conditions prevailing in the area, ie Idukki. 4. 2nd opposite party has also filed version supporting the version of the 1st opposite party. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 series, D1 and D2 and C1. 6. It is the contention of the appellant that the Forum has not considered the evidence at all and has just relied on in the report of the Commissioner. Commissioner who has not filed a proper report. 7. It is seen that the Forum has found that the vehicle has been repeatedly repaired at the workshop of the 2nd opposite party during the warranty period and thereafter 39 times in the same workshop of the 2nd opposite party and that the expert has reported as to the existence of manufacturing defects to the vehicle. 8. The expert Commissioner has noted that there is oil leaking and that when the engine started oil leaking increased. The Commissioner has also noted that the vehicle has been altered into delivery van and spring leaf numbers has been increased by two. 9. We find that the complaint was filed about 4 years after the purchase of the vehicle. It is not disputed that the vehicle has been altered as the delivery van and evidently more load would have been transported, being a commercial vehicle, regularly. The commissioner has inspected the vehicle in April 2003 ie about 7 years after the purchase of the vehicle. In the circumstance we find that the amount awarded is excessive. The order of the Forum is modified as follows: The opposite parties shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant; and also Rs.2000/- as cost is ordered by the Forum. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount will carry 12% interest from today. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
