IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint being filed by Mr. Kuttappa.M.K s/o. Kushalappa.M.M resident of Biligere Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponent no.1 and 2 with a prayer to direct the opponents to replace the defective vehicle in with a bond new Bolero Pickup vehicle to him, to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,886/-, cost of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment, Rs.4,500/- per day being incurred in engaging other similar vehicle on rental basis from the date of job card till the delivery of new vehicle, to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant with regard to the deficiency in service from opponents and Rs.25,000/- towards legal charges.  The opponent no.1 is Mahindra and Mahindra customer care Department, Mumbai and opponent no.2 is the Manager, India Garage, Madikeri, Kodagu District.  The opponent no.1 is the manufacturer and opponent no.2 is dealer in Mahindra vehicles.  The complainant has purchased Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA 12 B 8089 from opponent no.2 for an amount of Rs.7,00,886/- by availing loan on 15/06/2017.  Even before the vehicle was registered on 26/07/2017 the complainant left the vehicle in opponent no.2 garage work shop for his complaints.  The complainant came to know that there was difference of 15 mm compared to right hand  left side of the chassis when the vehicle was inspected by Mahindra and Mahindra.  In a joint inspection which was conducted on 11/10/2017 the opponent gave measurement of 7 mm difference in the chassis compare right hand left side.  The complainant came to know that this is manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the opponents have mislead the complainant. 

2. The complainant has requested the opponents to replace the new vehicle for defective purchase vehicle, but the opponents did not provide any vehicle inspect of his legal notice dated 25/10/2017.  The vehicle is lying with the opponents from 26/07/2017 and the complainant is paying EMS’s to the banks unnecessarily without their being any income which is nothing but loss to him.  The complainant is unnecessarily spending more than Rs.4,500/- per day by engaging other Bolero Pickup vehicle on rental basis apart from the time being.  Hence this complaint.

3. The opponent no.1 appeared through learned counsel filed detailed version running 15 pages.  The opponent no.1 has admitted the purchase of Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. KA 12 B 8089 from the opponent No.2 for Rs.7,00,886/-.  The opponent No.1 has denied that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and consequently the complainant has suffered mental agony and economic loss.  The complainant has failed to raise any manufacturing defect in the vehicle without no case would possibly lie against this opponent.  The next contention of the opponent No.1 is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle with the sole object to earn profits that is for commercial purpose as such he is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  On this count only, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. It is the case of opponent No.1 is that they have never refused the complainant for replacement of chassis of the vehicle.  On the contrary the complainant has refused for replacement of chassis of the vehicle as such he left the vehicle with the opponent no.2.  The next contention of the opponent is that the issue in the complaint can be adjudicated only after a detailed trail subject to providing cogent evidence and proof of the alleged defects in the vehicle as such the matter has to be referred to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a trial and the same cannot be tried summarily under the Consumer Protection Act.  The next objection of opponent No.1 is that the complaint is not within the limitation period.  On the amongst other grounds the opponent no.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The opponent no.2 inspite of service of the notice was proceeded exparte.

6. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got market exhibit P1 to 9 documents.  On behalf of opponent no.1 Anirban Das s/o. Nrupendra Chandra Das working as the DGM Regional Sales filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence. 

7. Heard the arguments of both the sides and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the complainant further proves that the vehicle purchased from opponents is having manufacturing defect?

3. Whether the opponent no.1 proves that the complaint barred by limitation?

4. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points are as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.3:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.3:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

9. Point No.1 and 2:-
10. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Smt. NeethuRai w/o. RanjanRai, resident of Virajpet, Kodagu District fails hence, it is dismissed without cost.
2. Furnish copy of the order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of  SEPTEMBER, 2018)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                     (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                             MEMBER