THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
APPEAL NO.249/2013
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1.M/s.BAJAJ AUTO LTD.
Having its registered office: Akrudi
Pune- 411 035 and having its … Appellant/s
Branch office at No.74, 15th Cross,
JP Nagar, III Phase,
Sarakki Industrial Layout,
Bangalore -560 078
Duly represented by
Mr.Venkatesha, Asst. Manager (Commercial)
2. M/s.SUPREME AUTO DEALERS (P) LTD,
Authorised Dealers of Bajaj Auto Ltd,
Jeppu, Mangalore -575002
(By Sri.B.S.Satyananad, Advocate)
V/s
Mr.M.Lohith Shetty,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri.Sankappa Shetty,
Manimole house,
Nayarmoole post,
Manila village,
Bantwal taluk, D.K.
(By Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, Adv.,)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Parties preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mangalore which directed them to replace a new engine assembly by removing the defective one to the auto-rickshaw and also pay cost of Rs.25,000-00 and litigation expenses of Rs.3,500-00 and submits that, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging manufacturing defects in the auto-rickshaw purchased by him. This Opposite Party repaired the vehicle and services also provided, in spite of that the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission for alleging manufacturing defects and prays for replacement of vehicle and this appellant appeared before the District Consumer Commission and contended that, the complainant received the vehicle without any problem there is no any manufacturing defects found in the vehicle purchased by the complainant and submits for dismissal of the complaint.
2. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed this Opposite Party to replace the new engine to the auto-rickshaw.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant before this commission.
4. Heard from the appellant and respondent not present.
5. On going through the certified copy of the order, we noticed here that, the complainant had alleged manufacturing defects in the engine of the vehicle purchased by him and alleged that the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 have rectified the defects on each occasion due to which was suffered loss of financial earning and prayed for replacement of the vehicle. The District Consumer Commission directed the Opposite Parties to replace the new engine assembly by removing the defective one and also directed the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000-00 as compensation. During the course of arguments, the learned advocate for appellant submits that, the vehicle in dispute had plied more than 23868 km as on 22-2-2013. The complainant still using the vehicle without any troubles, the complainant has filed false complaint alleging defects in the vehicle without any reasons. The complainant has not tendered any expert opinion with respect to the defects in the auto-rickshaw purchased by him. In spite of that, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed them to replace the engine, the said order is against the law hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.
6. The respondent not appeared to submit with respect to the submissions made by the appellant. We noticed the vehicle was with the complainant only and it is an admitted fact that, it was plied 23868 km as on the date of filing of the complaint. We are of the opinion that, the vehicle condition solely depends upon the style of driving by the driver and maintaining the vehicle properly. The alleged problems in the vehicle appears to be wear and tear repairs only which requires regular repair and services. We noticed that the appellant have provided prompt services to the complainant as and when the vehicle was tender for services and it is also pertinent to note that, he is still driving the vehicle. Therefore, we found there is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. We found the order passed by the District Consumer Commission lacks legality. The District Consumer Commission without anticipating any expert opinion allowed the complaint without any basis and directed this appellant to replace the engine and hold that the said engine was defective without any basis. Hence, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is here by set aside, accordingly the appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed.
The impugned order 22.01.2013 passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Mangalore in CC.No.231/2011 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
