CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31 ^st  day of November, 2016

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                           Date of filing: 27/08/2014

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

                  : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/121/2014

       A.Shobhan,

       S/o. Narayanan Nair,

       Adanchery House, Vandazhi P.O.,

       Palakkad.

      (By Adv.Sobhan & V.Shanmughanandan)        :         Complainant

Vs

1. Manager.S.M.L Motors,

   NH-47 Coimbatore Road,

   Marutharoad P.O.

  Palakkad-680007.                                        :         Opposite parties

    2. Managing Director,

   Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd,

   Pune.

      (By Adv. S.T.Suresh)             

O R D E R

      By Smt. Suma K.P.Member

The complainant purchased a Piaggio ape Mini vehicle from 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 27/12/2012 by paying an amount of Rs.2,07196/-( Rupees Two Lakh Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six Only) through the vehicle loan from the Indian Bank, Vadakkancheri Branch. At the time of purchase itself, the reading of odometer shows reading of 419kms and the four tyres were damaged. The four tyres were changed while handing over the vehicle. He had purchased the vehicle for his own occupation. At the time of purchase the opposite party had convinced that there was absolutely no mechanical defect or manufacturing defect for the vehicle. There were five free service for the vehicle and the complainant had availed all of them. The complainant alleges that soon after the next day of the purchase itself, the vehicle got damaged and he had sent e-mail on 06/01/2013 through the 2^nd opposite party. There were damages to gear system, clutch, and engine. Accordingly he informed the 1^st opposite party and they convinced him that after availing all the free services damages will be rectified and the vehicle will perform in good condition. Even after availing the free services the vehicle did not turned to running condition. Later, according to the direction of the 1^st opposite party the vehicle was taken to Akshaya Motors at Vadakkanchery and was repaired and had done services on several occasions. There were frequent damages to the vehicle and the complainant could not use the vehicle in good condition till date. The complainant informed the first opposite party about the defects occurred to the vehicle, but the 1^st opposite party had done only the five free services and told that they have no responsibility for further repair of the vehicle. The complainant further submits that he had sent a complaint to the opposite parties stating that the vehicle is having mechanical defect and manufacturing defect and it had to be taken back by paying the amount. The first opposite party had taken the vehicle to their service centre and it had not been replaced so far nor the amount was paid by them. The complainant further submits that he had avail vehicle loan from Indian Bank for the purchase of his vehicle and he had paid interest at about Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards the bank. He had suffered a lot of mental agony due to the condition of the vehicle and had sustained financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) due to the above. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by supplying the vehicle which was having the mechanical defect and manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant had approached before the forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to supply a new vehicle free from all the defects or to pay an amount of Rs.2,057196/-(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six Only) including the interest paid towards the loan along with cost of vehicle plus Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards financial loss and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) for mental agony suffered by him.

Both the opposite parties entered appearance upon the notice served from the forum and filed their versions containing the following:-

The opposite parties admit that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 27/12/2012. The reading of 419Kms odometer is the reading while the vehicle was run for demonstration. The opposite party could have easily brought it to ‘0’. But the opposite parties bonafidely did not do it. The four tyres were changed while handing over the vehicle and Rs.31,079/-(Rupees Thirty One thousand and Seventy nine only) was given as discount. The vehicle had purchased for commercial purpose. He had availed loan from the bank which will indicate that the vehicle had purchased for commercial purpose. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant after test drive. He was satisfied with the condition of the vehicle. There was absolutely no mechanical defect or manufacturing defect for the vehicle at the time of purchase. There were five free services for the vehicle. The opposite party had received a complaint on 07/11/2013. Immediately the opposite party requested the complainant to bring the vehicle to the service center. There were some minor discrepancy with regard to the brake and it was rectified then and there. He came to the Alathur service station on 29/01/2013, 20/03/2013,04/05/2013,22/06/2013 and 08/08/2013 to retain the warranty effective. The vehicle was not brought on those days. It is totally incorrect to state that the vehicle was taken by the opposite party on 07/07/2014. The vehicle was brought by the complainant on 07/07/2014 to service centre. The complainant was informed regarding the completion of work on 09/07/2014.On that particular date 15 months warranty period was over. The complainant was asked to remit an amount of Rs.11,000/-(Rupees Eleven thousand only) towards service charges. The complainant did not take the vehicle at service station and it was left there. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had not suffered financial loss or mental stress as stated in the complaint. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

The complainant filed chief affidavit. He also filed an application as IA 451/14 for appointment of expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle regarding the manufacturing defect. The application was allowed, and the commissioner inspected the vehicle and filed a detailed report. The opposite party filed application as IA85/15 to set aside the commissioner’s report. They also filed chief affidavit. They along with application as IA 108/15 to cross examine the commissioner. Application was allowed, and the commissioner was examined as CW1. The commission report was marked as C1. The opposite party filed application for cross examining the complainant. The complainant was cross examined as PW1.The documents were marked as Ext. A1-A9 was marked. The complainant also filed application to cross examine the opposite party. The opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Ext.B1 & B2 are marked. Ext. B3 and B4 were marked  subject to proof. The opposite parties produced certificates of Ext. B3 and B4. The complainant filed objections. The opposite party filed application to cause production of documents by complainant. The complainant filed affidavit stating the documents are not in their custody. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.

Issues that arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1,2 and 3?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the documents as well as commissioner’s report  and affidavits produced from both side. According to the commissioners report this engine is not suitable for the above vehicle for using as a goods carrying vehicle. The clutch is of a multi played system. Due to this faulty defects of the clutch wear and tear will be more, and it is very difficult engaging gear system, and also periodic brakes down will result. He had also stated that the inspected vehicle is not road worthy. According to the opposite party the commissioner has gone beyond the scope of the commission and has challenged the design, capacity of the engine and its road worthiness etc. The Automative Research Association of India has granted approval to Piagio Vehicles and issues certificate to the effect that the vehicle complies with all requirements of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Hence the commissioner cannot challenge the road worthiness of the vehicle. The ARAI has given approval after innumerable tests and the inspection of the vehicle. The Ext.B3 is the certificate issue that ARAI and B4 the letter issued by the transport commissioner. From the above documents it is seen that the vehicle is road worthy. The opposite parties submits that the vehicle was abandoned by the complainant in the service station by not paying Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards service charges. From the commission report and also from the evidence tendered by the commissioner before the forum it is clear that the vehicle is not road worthy and it is not meant for the purpose of the complainant. Since the expert commissioner has not stated in his report that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect or mechanical defect as alleged in the complaint, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Instead he had stated that the vehicle is not road worthy and is not meant for the purpose for which the complainant intends to use. In the above circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and refund the price of the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle which is now in the custody of the opposite party need not be returned to the complainant. Instead the opposite party shall refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.2,07196/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six only)to the complainant. Considering the facts of the above case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.

The complaint is allowed in part as above, and the aforesaid amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization.

  Pronounced in the open court on 30^th December 2016.   

    Sd/-

     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                         President

                            Sd/-

                     Smt. Suma. K.P

                          Member

                            Sd/-             

Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                          Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1-  Proforma Invoice No.382 dtd:-21/12/2012.

Ext.A2- Receipt No.1057 dtd:-27/12/2012 issued by SML Motors,   Marutharoad, palakkad.

Ext.A3 – Copy of E-mail print out dtd:-06/01/2013

Ext.A4- Receipt copy of tax receipt for the period 01/10/2013 -30/01/2014 issued by sub RTO Alathur. dtd:-03/10/2013.

Ext.A5- Cash receipt bill ( Original) issued by Akshaya motors, Erenchekulam  dtd:-23/12/2013.  

Ext.A6- Credit spare bill (original) issued by akshaya motors, Erenchekulam dtd:03/04/2014.

Ext.A7- Copy of RC book, reg no. KL-49-D-5979 dtd:- 21/01/2013.

Ext.A8- Copy of Warrant manual

Ext.A9- Receipt Copy of Warrant manual

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

 Ext.B1-Job card (Original)dtd:-15/01/2013

 Ext.B2-Job card (Origianal) dtd:- 07/07/2014

 Ext.B3- Certificate of Automative Research Association of India dtd:-       21/06/2010.

Ext.B4- Letter issued by transport commissioner to all other  RTO’s dated 12/06/2010.

Commission Report

C1-Luckose Thankachan

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Lukose Thankachan

PW2-A.Sobhan

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1

Cost Allowed

NIL