D.o.F:25/08/2011

D.o.O:29/10/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.NO.217/11

                     Dated this, the 29th     day of October 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                   : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                : MEMBER

Muralidhar Bhat,

S/o Late Laxmana Bhat,

R/at Fort Road, Po.Kasaragod                          : Complainant

(Adv.Mahesh.M,Kasaragod)

KVR Cars, Anangoor,

Po.Vidyanagar,Kasaragod                               : Opposite party

(exparte)

                                                         ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ   : PRESIDENT

   The case of the complainant in brief is that the staff of opposite party unnecessarily asked him to replace the engine of his Maruti EECO vehicle bearing Reg No.KL-14/J 7797 telling that the engine is beyond repair though it was repairable.  As a result he constrained to purchase a new engine for `54064.  Therefore alleging unfair trade practice this instant complaint is filed.

2.  Notice to opposite party issued by registered post has been served on 7/9/11.  But opposite party remained absent.  Therefore case posted for complainant’s evidence.

3.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of opposite party.  Complainant’s counsel heard and documents perused.

4 .  Complainant in his affidavit has stated that  he purchased one Maruti EECO 5 seater vehicle from opposite party in October 2010.    On 1/7/11 he  found that the coolant of the  vehicle is leaking hence it was taken to opposite party for rectification.  After 2 days when he approached the opposite party’s staff told that there is some problem on the engine and therefore asked to  come after a week.  Therefore he again approached  after a week.  At that  time staff of  opposite party told that the problem of the engine could not be  corrected by repairing  and the vehicle cannot be  run on the said engine due to its defects and hence the whole  engine needs to be replaced.  Since he does not have any technical knowledge with  regard to  the car  engine  or its working  he  believed the words of staff of opposite party and asked the opposite party to get a new engine and fit it to the aforesaid vehicle.  Thereafter again complainant visited opposite party 2 or 3 occasions and at that time the opposite party’s staff informed him that they have ordered a new engine.  Finally on 20/7/11 when he went to the office of opposite party it was told him that the vehicle has been  fitted  with a  new engine and after remitting `54064/- towards the price of the engine  he took delivery of  the car.  He also take back the old engine.  Sine he became suspicious about the defects of the old engine that how it became defective so soon, he took the  same to an expert mechanic.  To his shock the mechanic informed  him that there is no defect to the old engine and it has  been  subjected to some  harsh  hitting with hammer at lathe works by the opposite party and  as a result of which it produces some strange sound.  In spite of it the mechanic told that it  can be refitted.  He was totally shocked on hearing  these aspects and he asked the said mechanic to replace the new engine with  the old engine and it is found that the old engine is still working.  On  realizing  these aspects he approached the opposite party and asked their manager to take back the new engine and repay the amount.  But they refused his demand.  Now  the new engine is  laying  idle.

5.    Ext.A1 is the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle Maruti EECO bearing Reg. No.KL 14/J 7797 and  Ext.A2   is the cash bill issued by opposite party for replacing the engine  related works amounting to ` 54064/- and Ext.A3 is a bill for ` 2000/- issued from S.G.Auto Engineering works.

6.    There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming  from the opposite party for replacing  a repairable engine stating that it is not repairable.  Asking a consumer to purchase a new engine without properly evaluating and analyzing the defects of the old engine is definitely  constitute  unfair  trade practice.  The  complainant suffer undue hardships on account  of the  act of  opposite parties.  The opposite parties are therefore liable to make good the loss sustained to the complainant due to their careless, irresponsible attitude.

7.Relief and Costs:

  The  complainant has spent `54064/- quite unnecessarily  to replace a new engine.  Apart from that he also suffered mental agony and hardships.  The complainant is entitled for adequate compensation for the acts of opposite parties.

     The  complaint is therefore allowed and the opposite party is directed to take back the new Maruti EECO engine laying  idle with the  complainant  in as is where is condition and repay ` 54064/- to the complainant  together with a compensation of  `10,000/- and a cost of  `3000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to  30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which opposite party shall further liable to pay interest@9% for  `54064/-from the date of complaint till payment.

Exts:

A1-Copy of RC

A2 &A3- cash bills

MEMBER                                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

eva

                                                                            Date of filing   :     25-08-2011 

                                                                            Date of order   :    29-12-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.217/2011

                         Dated this, the   29^th   day of    December    2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                          : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                            : MEMBER

Muralidhar Bhat, S/o. Late.Laxmana Bhat,            } Complainant

R/at Fort Road, Po.Kasaragod. 671121.

(Adv.M.Mahesh, Kasaragod)

KVR Cars, Anangoor,                                              } Opposite party

Po. Vidyanagar, Kasaragod. 671123.

(Adv.Shrikanthashetty, K. Kasaragod)

                                                            O R D E R  

SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER

            The crux of the complaint is that the complainant purchased one Maruthi EECO 5 seater vehicle (saloon car) with AC from opposite party during October 2010.  The register number of  vehicle is KL-14-J 7797, the engine No. is G12 BN 139568 and the vehicle is  having 2 years warranty. On 1-07-2011 the complainant found that the coolant of the aforesaid vehicle was leaking and sent to opposite party for servicing. When the complainant approached opposite party for taking back the vehicle it is informed him that there is some problem in the engine of the vehicle and  they are trying to correct the same. Finally on 20-07-2011 complainant took delivery of the repaired vehicle with new engine after paying a bill of `54,064/- complainant was wondering as to how the engine of such a new vehicle could became so faulty which could not even be repaired.  Therefore the complainant asked one of expert mechanic to check the old engine.  The said mechanic after checking informed the complainant that there is no defect in the old engine and it has been subjected to some harsh hitting (with hammer) at lathe works.  As a result it produces some harsh sound.  The aforesaid vehicle is even today running with the old engine. The opposite party had deliberately misled him and made him to change the engine and this caused huge monitory loss to the complainant.

2.         The opposite party appeared and filed version admitting the selling of the vehicle to the complainant. He also admits the receiving of the vehicle for servicing from the complainant.  According to opposite party it was the complainant who insisted for the change of engine and was changed. Another contention raised by opposite party is that due to the usage of unauthorized LPG fitting in the car of the complainant, the engine developed over heating, piston and cylinder slackness, compression weak and engine misfiring.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case and was examined as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A4 marked.  Opposite party did not enter the witness box nor examined any witness.  Documents of opposite party were marked as Exts. B1 to B5 from the side of the complainant. The questions raised for consideration are:

1.      Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.      If so, what is the relief?

4.     Here the opposite party admits the receiving  of the vehicle for servicing  from the complainant why opposite party replaced the old engine with a new one rather than repairing the old one is no where explained in version.  It is unbelievable that the complainant had asked for the replacement of the old engine with a new one within one  year of purchase.  If the replacement of engine is done insisted by the complainant he would not have  come before the Forum challenging it as deficiency in service.  No evidence is produced before the Forum to show that the old engine is “defective beyond repairs and cannot be used to run the vehicle”. The question is  why the opposite party replaced the old engine with a new one while the old engine was not defective?.

5.         The opposite party in his version admits receiving the aforesaid vehicle from the complainant with a complaint of leakage of coolant and agreed to return the vehicle after 2 days since it is a minor defect.  But he could not rectify the defects.  In order to escape from the questions and qurries of the complainant temporarily about the delay .  Opposite party might have created a genuine reason  of defective engine and when the complainant accepted the ‘reason’ opposite party got double benefit, delay condoned and profit arised out of it . Thus opposite party charged the price of the new engine from the complainant. Asking a consumer to purchase a new engine without properly evaluating and analyzing the defects of the old engine is definitely unfair trade practice.  The complainant suffered undue hardships on account of the act of opposite party.  It is impossible to believe that a person who has entrusted the vehicle for repair would have voluntarily ask for replacement of engine i.e within one year of purchase opposite party has not produced the estimate of cost difference between repairing and replacement.  Complainant produced the vehicle before the Forum on 6-09-2012 on inspection some slight abnormal sound is heard from the engine, as if it has been subjected to some harsh hitting at lathe works.  Inspection proved that the case of the complainant is true. The engine replacement done by opposite party was unnecessary and it shows the unfair trade practice  on the part of opposite party. The act of opposite party caused hardship and financial loss to the complainant.  Opposite party has clearly misled the complainant who is not having any technical knowledge with regard to vehicle and its engine.

6.         Complainant had produced Ext.B4 (engine parameter report) which shows that the old engine is in good working condition.  Further the complainant had produced the vehicle in question fitted with old engine and also the new engine supplied by opposite party before the Forum.  The Forum made a test drive with old engine and the new engine. When the car is driven with old engine there is some strange sound.  But the vehicle can run with the old engine.  Nothing is produced before the Forum to show that the engine supplied by opposite party is new.  Opposite party has clearly misled the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The loss and hardships suffered by the complainant has to be compensated.  Opposite party does not have  a proper explanation and a consistent case.  Opposite party has unnecessarily replaced the engine with new one, when the old engine could have been repaired at lesser cost. The contentions raised by opposite party with regard to the LPG fitting is without any merits and is liable to be rejected.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to take back the engine supplied by them and return the cost of `54,064/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with compensation of `10,000/- and cost of `5,000/-. Failing which `54,064/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% from 20-07-2011.

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.Photocopy of RC. KL-14-J-7797.

A2.Job card retail cash memo

A3. Estimate S.G.Auto Engineering Works Karandakkad.

A4. Job Card Retail Cash Memo.

B1.Photocopy of Job Slip

B2. Photocopy of Job Card.

B3. Photocopy of Job card retail cash memo

B4. Photocopy of Job Card

B5. Copy of Email

PW1. Muralidhara Bhat.

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

Pj/