KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COMMON ORDER IN APPEAL Nos.364/03 and 386/03 JUDGMENT DATED:21.7.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPEAL No.364/03 The Managing Partner, : APPELLANT Century Connections(P) Ltd., Arikupuram Buildings, Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthpauram. (By Adv.S.V.Shaji) Vs. 1. Mr.M.J.Raju, House No.D.35, : RESPONDENTS Maithry Nagar, Valiyavila, Thirumala.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.T.R.Asokan) 2. The Managing Director, Kinetic Engineering Ltd., D.I.Block, Plot No.18/2, Chinchward, Pune. APPEAL No.386/03 The Managing Director, : APPELLANT Kinetic Engineering Ltd., D.I.Block, Plot No.18/2, Chinchward, Pune. By Adv.S.V.Shaji) Vs. 1. Mr.M.J.Raju, House No.D.35, : RESPONDENTS Maithry Nagar, Valiyavila, Thirumala.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.T.R.Asokan) 2. The Managing Partner, Century Connections(P) Ltd., Arikupuram Buildings, Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthpauram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal 364/03 is the 2nd opposite party manufacturer and the appellant in 386/03 is the 1st opposite party dealer in OP.61/2001 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.29,230/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. It is also ordered that on payment of the above amounts the complainant will hand over the vehicle to the 1st opposite party dealer. 2. The case of the complainant is that the kinetic Honda scooter purchased by him on 22.2.2000 on hire purchase was totally defective. The vehicle was having serious manufacturing defects. It was having only low milege. Its front portion was having a crack, the front shock absorber was defective, the speedometer was not in working condition, the tubes and tyres were defective. For more than 20 times the vehicle was taken to the dealer for repairs. 3. The opposite parties have filed joint version contending that there was no manufacturing defects and that it was on account of bad maintenance that the vehicle developed defects. Whenever the vehicle was brought for repairs the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of CW1; Exts.P1 to P6, D1 to D3 and C1. 5. As per C1 report the speedometer reading on the date of inspection ie, on 18.11.2001 is 9715 Kms. The Commissioner has noted that the vehicle was kept idle for more than 3 months and that it could not be started due to improper functioning of the fuel system. He started the same after cleaning the spark plug and after several pedal kicks. The Commissioner has also noted that the fuel system was found defective; fuel coke is to be replaced; starting motor is to be replaced; clutch unit is to be replaced. He could not conduct the milege test. He has noted cracks on the front body panel. It is also noted that the body was found rusted at various points and the rear carrier was found rewelded. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that the fuel system and starting system of the vehicle was found totally defective. It is also mentioned that the opposite parties have submitted that they are ready to make the vehicle roadworthy by replacing all the defective parts free of costs. 6. All the same as noted by the Forum the vehicle had a number of manufacturing defects. Evidently the complainant has kept the vehicle idle for sometime. As he has purchased a brand new vehicle the above pointed out the defects ought not have been there. It is pertinent to note that the Commissioner has mentioned that the body was found rusted at various points. The above is an indication as to the quality of the vehicle. In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum as to the finding that there was manufacturing defects to the vehicle is called for. 7. The Forum has deducted 10% from the purchase price and ordered the opposite party to pay the balance . We find from the speedo meter reading that the complainant has plied the vehicle considerably. The speedo meter reading as noted above is
9715 Kms. We find that deduction of 25% from the purchase price would be reasonable. Hence a sum of Rs.8120/- will be deducted from the purchase price of Rs.32,478/-. The appellants would be liable to pay the above amount with interest, compensation and cost as ordered by the Forum. A direction to handover the vehicle to the 1st opposite party on payment of the amounts by the opposite parties is sustained. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order at the earliest. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
