KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.374/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 28.05.2012

PRESENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Akurdi, Pune-411 035,                                       : APPELLANT

Rep. by its Asst. Service Manager.

(By Adv:Sri.S.Ajith)

          Vs.

1.      Mr.K.Sasikumar,

Krishna Vilasom Bunglow,

Nediyamkodu, Kanavila,

Parasuvakkal.P.O,

Neyyattinkara, TVPM.

(By Adv:Sri.V.Buvanendran Nair)

2.      The Manager,                                            : RESPONDENTS

M/s Deedi Automobiles,

Kaimanam, Pappanamnode.

3.      The Manager,

Saire Automobiles, Neyyattinkara.

                       JUDGMENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADASAN NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the 3^rd opposite party in OP.132/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complainant/1^st respondent was the purchaser of a Bajaj Caliber bike from the 1^st opposite party.  He purchased the same on 30.12.2003 with the financial assistance of the Bajaj Auto Ltd from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant alleged that there was 2 year replacement warranty for the bike.  Ever since the date of purchase of the vehicle it had developed troubles due to manufacturing defects.  It was very difficult to run the vehicle during night because the head lights were very poor.  The 1^st opposite party assured that the defects could be attended to in the free service to be carried out.  Despite all repairs the problems persisted which were due to manufacturing defects.   The petitioner noticed that both edges of the front tyre were being wearing out excessively.  The 2^nd opposite party told the petitioner that it was due to defect of the tyre. But the showroom from which the tyre was purchased when approached, informed the complainant that the wear and tear was due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  That opinion was supported by many expert mechanics.  There was also defect with regard to the gear system.  Even while the engine is stopped and the bike is put to rest on side stand the engine moves on to gear without any physical effort or provocation.  This happened even while moving.  This is a very dangerous defect that could cause accidents.  The 2^nd opposite party could not rectify this defect also.  Though the complainant spends huge amounts for repairing the vehicle it is not in a running condition.  The complainant sent fax messages to opposite parties 1 and 2 detailing the defects in the vehicle and demanded replacement of the same.  But the first opposite party neglected to do so.  All the manufacturing defects happened within the period of replacement warranty for which complainant is legally entitled to get the bike replaced.   He also demanded Rs.75,000/- towards the expenses incurred and damages sustained.

2.      Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed joint version and the 2^nd opposite party filed separate version.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 contended that there was no replacement warranty as alleged.  The company only permits service for rectifying the defects if any that occur due to defect in workmanship or quality of the material.  There is no manufacturing or other defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has not pointed out any specific defect.  There was no excess wear to the tyres as alleged.  The vehicle is excessively used and the tyres have got only normal wear and tear.  The complainant brought his vehicle to the opposite party and on inspection no defect was found in the vehicle.  The opposite parties never told the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The vehicle is in a running condition and even now the complainant is using the same. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 3.

3.      The 2^nd opposite party contented that they were the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party.  They have serviced the disputed vehicle.  All the complaints regarding the vehicle were properly and duly attended to at the time of service.  The complainant never told the defects now raised to the 2^nd opposite party at the time of service.  If he had pointed out any defect that would have been noted in the job card and would have been duly rectified.  There was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  There was no deficiency of service on their part. 

4.      The complainant gave evidence as PW1.  Two witnesses were examined on the side of the opposite parties.  Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  An expert commissioner has filed report which was marked as Ext.C1. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1.

5.      The CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram after considering the evidence and arguments on both sides, held that the manufacturer was liable to replace the motor bike as there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle and those defects occurred within the warranty period.  However since the order was pronounced 8 years after the date of purchase, replacement was not allowed.   Instead the 3^rd opposite party was directed to refund the value of the motor bike.  Rs.10,000/- was allowed as compensation and Rs.3000/- was allowed as costs.  The complainant was directed to return the bike to the 3^rd opposite party once the above parts of the order were complied with.  The 3^rd opposite party has preferred this appeal challenging the said order of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The only question that arises for consideration is whether the vehicle purchased by the complainant suffered from manufacturing defects within the warranty period and whether the order of the Forum is sustainable.

6.      Admittedly the complainant/1^st respondent in this appeal purchased the Bajaj Caliber bike from the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party.  The case of the complainant is that soon after purchase, the vehicle showed certain serious manufacturing defects which were attended to by the 2^nd opposite party without any result.  Therefore he was entitled to get the vehicle replaced.  The opposite parties have denied the allegation that the vehicle was having serious manufacturing defects.  According to them had the vehicle been suffering from serious manufacturing defects, Exts.D1 to D5 job cards would have shown that. But Ext.D2 itself shows that the purchaser had complained of low pulling by the vehicle.  It is not known whether that defect was remedied.  Exts.D1 to D5 further show that the purchaser had brought the vehicle for all mandatory services.  So prima-facie there was no laches on his part or misuse of the vehicle.  In allowing the complaint the district forum relied on the evidence of CW1 and the Ext.C1 report filed by him.

7.      In Ext.C1 report the commissioner has mentioned that he inspected the vehicle at the office of opposite party No.1.  But the tools necessary to check the vehicle alignment were not available.  The commissioner noticed abnormal wear and tear to the front tyre and imbalance of the vehicle on riding.  The front wheel wobbling was observed during running of the vehicle.  The wheel spokes were found loose.  He suggested to tighten the same properly and check the wheel alignment.  After doing so he again checked the vehicle but found the wheel wobbling.  On dismantling front suspension and fork,  fork-T stem was found defective which was a manufacturing defect.  His opinion is that the said defect would cause the abnormal wear and tear of the front tyre and imbalance on riding the vehicle.  The commissioner further noticed abnormal sound in the idling speed itself and even at a speed of 40 kmph that sound was observed at a higher level.  He observed that heavy engine noise was due to various factors like improper valve seating, valve spring defect more tappet clearance etc.  Any one or more of the said defects would cause mal-functioning of the engine which produces abnormal sound and over heating.  He also found that the head lamp and horn were not properly working.  Relying on Ext.C1 report and the version of the commissioner the District Forum rightly held that the allegation of the complainant that there were serious manufacturing defects for the vehicle was correct.  It is further seen that proper reliefs were granted to the complainant and the appellant can have no grievance on that ground also.  In short there is no merit in the appeal.  Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.