BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 213/2000 Filed on 18.04.2000

Dated : 30.01.2009

Complainant:

S. Rajan Babu, T.C 41/328/1, Kailas, Kuriathy, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Ramachandran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Deedi Auto Ltd., Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Chirayinkil C.P. Bhadrakumar)

2. The Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Poona, Maharashtra.

(By adv. S. Ajith)

This O.P having been heard on 31.12.2008, the Forum on 30.01.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant's case is that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Bravo Model scooter from the 1^st opposite party, Deedi Automobiles Ltd., who is the dealer of 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is

the manufacturer of the vehicle. But the vehicle has not giving proper mileage and it was swerving to one side due to the manufacturing defect in the fork and so the complainant prays that the vehicle is to be replaced with a new one or its price may be refunded.

The 1^st opposite party contends that the vehicle is not bad due to any manufacturing defect and a false

has been foisted by the complainant without any basis. He further contends that regarding mileage there is no further guarantee and normal maintenance is given to the vehicle and there is no manufacturing defect also. If there is any defect in the vehicle, that is only due to wrong use or rough use and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The 2^nd opposite party contends that there is no manufacturing defect on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

It is said that the vehicle has given to unauthorized service centre in which the defect is occurred. And also they stated that the complaint is filed after 7 years from the date of purchased of the vehicle.

This case has been ordered on 30.04.2002 and thereafter the 1^st opposite party had filed appeal and

the appeal allowed and the case is remitted to lower forum for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to the manufacturer who is impleaded as 2^nd respondent in the appeal to file version and also to contest the matter. Accordingly this Forum issued notice to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd

opposite party entered appearance and filed version and contest the case.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the vehicle is defective due to manufacturing defect?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

3. Costs of the proceedings.

Points (i) to (iii):- The complainant has been examined as PW1 and documents have been marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The 1^st opposite party has been examined as DW1. The 2^nd opposite party has not

adduced any evidence. The commissioner has been examined as CW1, and the report has been marked as Ext. P7. After the examination of the vehicle the commissioner filed report and he reported that the vehicle is hit by manufacturing defect and that is the reason for the bad performance. The 1^st

opposite party is the dealer of the Bajaj Bravo Model scooter and purchase is admittedly for Rs. 30,464/-. Ext. P1 is the evidence of that transaction. When the commissioner examined the vehicle it has been already run a distance of 13106 km. The date of purchase was 20.05.1999.

In this case the 2^nd opposite party contended that the complaint was filed after 7 years from the date of purchase. But the allegation of the 2^nd opposite party is not true. The date of purchase was 20.05.1999 and the date of complaint was 18.04.2000. Another main contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the

vehicle was given unauthorized service centre i.e; K.B. Automobiles. K.B. Automobiles is not an authorized service centre. Ext. P8 and P9 are the proofs of that contention. The commission report also reveals that the vehicle is defective in manufacturing of engine and fork had resulted in the manufacturing defect. In this case the opposite parties are failed to defend the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The complainant in this case succeeded to establish his case with ample evidences and pleadings. Since the vehicle has been some manufacturing defect, the vehicle is to be replaced with a new one or its value is to be refunded. The complainant has been using the vehicle still now. Considering this fact, 15% of the value is to be deducted as depreciation. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, argued this matter. The opposite parties sold the defective vehicle to the complainant and thereby the complainant suffers so much hardships, financial loss and mental agony. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for their unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 25,570/- i.e; 15% deducted from Rs. 30,464/- and also shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the above said amounts.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th January 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 213/2000

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Rajan Babu

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Bill for the cost of scooter, tax and insurance dated

20.05.1999.

P2 - Copy of Indira Vikas Patra for Rs. 200 date of issue

18.05.1999.

P3 - Motor vehicle insurance cover note with CR No. 248159

dated 20.05.1999.

P4 - Receipt No. 44981 dated 19.05.1999 issued by the 1^st opposite

party.

P5 - Photocopy of R.C. Book.

P6 - Copy of tax payment dated 20.05.1999.

P7 - Commission Report dated 04.07.2001.

P8 - 1. Workshop bill No. 2858 dated 16.09.2000.

2. Workshop bill No. 2342 dated 22.05.2000.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Ravi Menon

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

CW1 - Thomas Vadakkan

PRESIDENT