THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.453/2011

Dated this the 27^th day of April 2013.

 

            ( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A.LLB.                                : President)                       

                             Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB.                                  : Member

 

 

 

ORDER

 

By G.Yadunadhan, President:

 

            The petition was filed on17.11.2011. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a car from the opposite party for Rs.1,89,976/-, out of that complainant had paid Rs.59,000/-. For balance amount opposite party arranged loan facilities. After two months of purchase the vehicle’s engine became trouble. It seems some sort of oil leakage. It was timely intimated to the opposite party, opposite party rectified and returned back . This incident  repeated again, but opposite party so far not responded. Repeatedly the defect was happened but opposite party failed to rectify the defects permanently . This is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties . Due to this complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakhs) along with compensation.

 

            Opposite parties after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version, stating that It is true that the complainant had purchased a Tata Nano vehicle manufactured by the first opposite party from the show room of the second opposite party on 18.11.2010. It is clear that the complainant has been using the vehicle extensively during the period from 18.11.2010 to 24.11.2011. During this period the vehicle had completed 22,158 KMs at an average of 60 kms. per day. From the complaint itself it is evident that the complainant has been using the vehicle for long journey on business purposes. A car with serious trouble as alleged in the complaint can not be used for such extensive use. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant’s vehicle had met with an accident on 17.09.2011 and at that time the vehicle had completed 19,837 kms. The vehicle was brought to the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party for accidental repairs. It was repaired and returned back to the complainant. The vehicle is still running without any defects. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

 

1)      Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2)      Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite    

      parties. If so what is the relief and cost.

 

Complainant was continuously absent for the last 3 consecutive postings. On perusal of documents and complaint itself speaks the truth that, Complainant is continuously using the vehicle without any disturbance, it means 60 km. per day. No other supporting evidence adduced to prove the complainant ‘s case. Apart from the R.C. and Tax invoices complainant miserably failed to prove their case. Under these circumstance no merit in this complaint. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 27^th day of April 2013.

Date of filing:17.11.2011.

 

 

                  SD/-PRESIDENT                       SD/- MEMBER.

 

//True copy//

 

 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT