KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 544/2011
JUDGMENT DATED :05.05.2012
PRESENT:
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
1. Tata Motors Ltd., represented by its-
General Manager, Tata Motors,
Lal Bahadur Sastri Marg,
Wagle Estate, Thane – 400 604,
Maharashtra.
2. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd.,
Kappakada, Punnapra P.O.,
Alappuzha, Represented by its Manager : APPELLANTS
(By Advs. V. Krishna Menon & S. Reghu Kumar)
Vs
K. Haridas, S/o. Kunhikrishnan Nair,
Residing at “Ayodhya”, Keerikadu P.O.,
Pattiyoorkala, Pattiyoor Village,
Karthikappally Taluk,
Rep. by his wife Smt. Shashikala. : RESPONDENT
(By Advs. Muhammed Basheer & Karthika A.R.)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
The order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 121/08 to pay Rs.80,000/- towards the repair charges along with Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as compensation and cost respectively is under attack by the appellants/opposite parties in this appeal.
2. It is the case of the complainant that a Tata Model 1109 bus was purchased by the complainant on 19.10.05 from the opposite parties which suffered defects on the very first day of running the vehicle in Dec. 2005. Thereafter frequent failure of oil/fuel injection system occurred and had to be repaired. The assurance of the opposite parties was not fruitful during the warranty period itself and the complainant had to spend Rs.60,000/- and was under pressure to cancel the bus trips due to breakdown of the vehicle for more than 74 days. The complainant sustained huge loss and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and filed complaint before the Forum below for replacement of the vehicle or to realize the expenses of Rs.2,24,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the vehicle was reported for the first service only and for further services the vehicle was produced at the Choice Auto motives and Engineering works. They were not included in the party array. After the first service no defects were pointed out by the complainant nor any defects with respect to oil/fuel injection system. The allegation of the complainant regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle is without any bonafides and the expenses met were only for consumables and for wear and tear items and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as per the conditions of the warranty of the vehicle.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and RW1. Exts. A1 series to A18 were marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The Forum below found that the complainant had to invest a huge sum of money and constrained to abandon trips due to the defects in the vehicle and allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant.
6. The appellant/opposite parties, aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum below, filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act as the vehicle was used as a private carriage and was making profit out of it. As per the amended act a person who purchases goods for commercial purposes is specifically excluded from the purview of the Act. Another contention raised by the appellants is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is filed after 3 years from the date of purchase and is barred by limitation and the order is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that while alleging manufacturing defects it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the defect by an expert as per Sec. 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also not proved that the complainant had sustained loss and the Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- which is also liable to be set aside.
7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle was purchased for conducting the bus service for his own livelihood and on the very first day itself, the silencer of the vehicle had fallen away and caused inconvenience. Thereafter due to frequent defects in brake system, oil injection assembly, fuel injection system, the complainant could not run the vehicle in time. The vehicle had to be subjected to repair with the authorized service station of Tata Motors. Inspite of requests personally made by the complainant and also over the telephone, opposite parties were reluctant to attend the defects of the vehicle. Hence the complainant informed the opposite parties by a letter in August 2006 which was responded with a mere assurance only from the opposite parties. Though warranty of 18 months was in existence, the respondent had to spend a huge amount for the repair of the vehicle.
8. On hearing both the counsels for the
appellants and the respondent, we find that the respondent had to spend a huge sum towards the repair of his vehicle. It is also to be pointed out that the very first day of running of the vehicle the silencer had fallen. The warranty is for 18 months which starts from October 2005 to April 2007. During that period the respondent had to spend around 40,000/- on minor and meagre defects. The defects persisted even after the warranty period was due to the basic defects of the vehicle and the complainant produced the bills around Rs.95,000/- till June 2008. The vehicle in question had inherent defects and the complainant carried out the repairs at his risk.
9. In this context we have to point out that the respondent approached the 2nd opposite party for the first service only and thereafter all the works were carried out with the local service centres. It is true that break down happened to the bus service and got repaired within no time or else it will affect the route permit. As there was no satisfactory response from the opposite parties, there was no other alternative for the respondent other than to approach the Local Auto service and that too mostly done with the authorized agency of the 1st opposite party. The consistent failure and break down of the bus service burdened the respondent with financial loss. The allegation of manufacturing defect was not proved by the respondent. There is no expert opinion before us to come to a conclusion that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects.
10. It is on record that the respondent/complainant produced the bills till June 08. It is an admitted fact that there is only 18 months warranty and the bills beyond the warranty period is to be excluded as it is not proved properly as a manufacturing defect. Further a daily bus service certainly occur normal wear and tear and it will not cover the warranty.
11. Admittedly there is no dispute that the vehicle in question had no defects at all nor the respondent repaired the vehicle as the documents prove otherwise. It is a very disturbing fact that from the very first day onwards the vehicle occurred persisting defects. Moreover, the vehicle was a means of livelihood for the complainant. There is no case of the opposite parties that they have attended any of the defects during the warranty period and it is quite normal on the part of the complainant to approach the authorized agency especially during the warranty period and that too for immediate remedy. A person who purchases a vehicle to eke out his livelihood is not supposed to take his vehicle to the workshop every now and then.
12. So we are of the considered view that the respondent/complainant is to be compensated as he has approached the workshop even at the warranty period for one or the other reason to repair the vehicle. At the same time, though the complainant had incurred expenses for repairs after the warranty period, he had not proved that the vehicle has got inherent manufacturing defect.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. We direct the 1st opposite party to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent with 9% interest from the date of the complaint within one month from today failing which the interest to be paid will be at 12% from the date of default till payment. The costs of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Da
