By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows.

The Complainant had purchased a Swaraj Mazda Open tipper with chasis No.V6262 46M 0089807 bearing engine number SLC GV 83100 from the 1^st Opposite Party thorugh 2^nd Opposite Party. For the purchase of vehicle, the Complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the 1^st Opposite Party through the 2^nd Opposite Party. The balance amount was arranged at Sundaran Finance Ltd by the 1^st Opposite Party himself. The 1^st Opposite Party agreed to deliver the vehicle with all finishing work including the body building. The 1^st Opposite Party conducted the body building at Kalpeka body builders, Malapuram. Thereafter the vehicle had been registered at R.T Office, Wayanad with Reg. No. KL – 12/C. 906.

2. At the time of delivery of vehicle, service book, service coupon, battery guarantee card and body builder's guarantee card were not given by the 1^st Opposite Party and thereby the complainant was not able to carryout the free service.

3. The brand new vehicle supplied by the 1^stOpposite Party was having many defects. The platform of the vehicle is made of low gauge metal sheet. Due to the negligence at the time of welding the remenents of melted iron spread around and the side glass indicator , side mirror near the drivers seat and the back glass of the cabin were got spoiled. So, the vehicle could not be driven with clear vision. The tipping chasis of the vehicle got a crack near tipping riches due to low quality metal used. At the time of delivery of the finished vehicle, hydrolic jackey was also included. The jackey supplied was of low quality. Instead of the promised wipro jackey, Opposite Party had provided expro jackey. The automatic lock of the back door has got complaint.

4. Though all the defects of the vehicle were brought to the notice of the Opposite Party 1, no steps were taken to rectify them. In the absence of service book, the complainant could not avail services for the vehicle. Due to the deficiency in service of the Opposite party 1, the Complainant has suffered loss, inconvenience and mental agony. The Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to furnish documents including service book, service coupen, battery guarantee card and body builder's guarantee card and to provide wipro jacky instead of expro jacky. The Complainant also prays for a direction to rectify the defects caused at the time of body building including the replacement of low guage metel sheet with superior quality sheet. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. The Opposite Party 1^st and 2^nd filed version and admitted the sale of Swaraj Mazda ZT54ES BPTO PICKUP LCV (Tipper Chassis) Wheel Base 2815 MM for a total consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- by the 1^st Opposite Party. Out of that amount, Rs. 6000/- is yet to be paid by the Complainant. The Complainant had cooked up the complaint just to avoid the payment of this amount.

6. The Complainant has sold the chasis only and has no business of body building. The customer has to arrange the body building himself. The Opposite Parties are not liable for the defects, if any, happened at the time of body building. The Complainant has to proceed against the body builders. The Opposite Parties are not liable to replace the jackey since the same was not given by the Opposite Parties. Likewise the body builders guarantee card has to be issued by the body builders. The body building was conducted at Malappuram district and the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party were impleaded only to fix jurisdiction at Wayanad.

7. It is not correct to say that the service book, service coupon and the Battery Guarantee Card are not handed over to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have promptly handed over all the papers including the above to the customer at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The Complainant had availed four free services to his vehicle for which production of service book and service coupon are must. Free service and guarantee are assured by the manufacturers and the manufacturer is not impleaded. Further, the manufacturer gives guarantee to the battery for one year from the date of purchase and free service for one year or upto 52,000 kilometers whichever comes first. In this case one year elapsed after the purchase of vehicle chasis and the Complainant will not get further guarantee for the battery or any free service. Hence the Opposite party prays for an order dismissing the case.

8. The Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A16 on the side of the Complainant. The Manager of Sundaran finance were examined as PW2. The expert commission was taken out by the Complainant and was examined as CW1. The Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. The 1^st Opposite party was examined as OPW1 and no documents were marked on the side of the Opposite Parties.

9. The matters to be considered are as follows.

1. Whether the body building of the disputed vehicle was done by the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.

10. Point No.1 The Complainant's case is that he has paid 7,00,000/- for the finished vehicle after the body building. The Opposite Party deny this allegation and state that they have received only 6,50,000/- and delivered only the chasis of the vehicle. The receipts produced by the Complainant. Ext.A1,ExtA14, Ext.A7 shows the payment of Rs. 5,000/- + 40,000/- + 1,37,000/- etc., ie, Rs. 1,87,000/- in total. Ext.A8 shows that Rs. 5,00,000/- is financed by Sundaran Finance. Apart from this, as per the Ext.A9 Rs.12,300/- also is paid through the Sundaran Finace by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. PW2 affirms this matter. So Rs. 7,00,000/- in total is paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. So, the contention of the Complainant that he has paid Rs.7,00,000/- for the finished vehicle is found true.

11. Point No. 2 In the complaint the Complainant alleges that service book, Service Coupon, battery guarantee card, body builder's guarantee card were not given. It is seen that the complaint is filed after one year of purchasing the vehicle. The OPW1 has stated that the Complainant had availed four free services. The Complainant has not produced any document to show that he has been charged for any initial services or has not availed any free service. Ext.A2 shows the price of replaced parts and not service charge. In respect of the defects caused in body building of the vehicle, Ext.C1 is taken into belief and it is seen that the platform of the loadbody is seen built with material uniform to that of other vehicles of the same type. Ext.C1 also state that the platform was seen deformed at some places due to the careless dumping of loads such as granite etc. Ext. C1 also mention about damages of back glasses of drivers cabin and both the window glasses due to the sparks while welding. But the commissioner, when examined as CW1, could not say when such damages were caused. The Forum has the sole device of commission report and the examination of commissioner to determine whether there is any defect in the body building or not. Here the witness CW1 clearly deposed that there is no manufacturing defect in respect of the vehicle. The damages caused to the platform body is due to negligent use. CW1 also state that the vehicle could not have been registered in case of any damage to the jack or substandard bodybuilding. For the above said reason, Point No.2 is found against the complainant.

12. Point No.3 As there is no deficiency in service found on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is found not entitled for any relief.

Hence the Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the complainant :

PW1. T.M. Mathew Complainant

PW2. Prasad. K.S Branch Manager Sundaram Finance.

CW1. Rajesh AMVI, Kalpetta.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties :

OPW1. Prashob. Manager, Monal Moters.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Cash Receipt dt.31.03.2005

A2. Lawyer notice.

A3. Postal receipt

A4. Acknowledgement card.

A5. Cash Receipt dt. 13.03.2006

A6. Visiting card

A7. Photo copy of cash receipt dt. 5.04.2005

A8. Loan contract dt. 30.05.2005

A9. Receipt dt. 7.04.2005

A10. Proforma invoice dt. 5.04.2005

A11. Invoice dt. 30.06.2001

A12. Attested copy of R.C book

A13. True copy of driving licence

A14. Receipt dt.8.04.2005

A15. True copy of invoice dt.30.06.2001

A16. True copy of delivery chalan dt. 30.06.2001.

C1. Commission Report

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

Nil.