SRI. JACOB STEPHEN (PRESIDENT):<br /> <br /> The complainant Sam Mathew has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> The facts of the complaint read as follows: The complainant has purchased a new vehicle branded as Eicher 10.75 Cab & Tipper Chassis bearing Chassis No.19CC 6A 132135 and Engine No. E 483 CD6A 135335 from the opposite parties on 23.3.2006. Guarantee was assured by opposite parties for any repairs and damages for a period of 3 years or for a running kilometer of 3,00,000 whichever is earlier. The vehicle is now running below 60,000 kilometer. The said vehicle was registered with Joint R.T.Office, Thiruvalla as registration No. KL03N-9147. On 9.3.2007 when the vehicle was taken to 3rd opposite party for periodical service, it was noticed several cracks on the left side chassis. When it was shown to the third opposite party, he told that such cracks are not serious and he will act if it will develop more.<br /> On 22.3.2007 and on 22.8.2007, when the cracks were seen developed, the cracks were shown to the third opposite party. On 22.8.2007, the third opposite party took photographs of the said cracks and asked him to keep the vehicle at the third opposite party’s workshop for getting a decision from other opposite parties in this regard and also informed that it will take at least one month for getting a decision from the other opposite parties. Accordingly, he kept the vehicle there. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice on 24.8.2007 to the opposite parties demanding the rectification of the defects and for paying Rs.2,000/- per day as compensation for the monetary loss due to the non-use of the vehicle. The said notice was received by the opposite parties. On 12.9.2007, the third opposite party returned the vehicle by doing some welding works over the crack. The repairing works done by the third opposite party is not sufficient and the crack on the chassis is a manufacturing defect, which was not rectified or replaced by the opposite parties. The action of the opposite parties are deficiency of service and is a violation of the guarantee assured by the opposite parties, for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. So the complainant prays for directing the opposite parties either to replace the damaged chassis or to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- along with compensation of Rs.42,000/- for the loss of income due to non-use of the vehicle and cost of this complaint.<br /> The opposite parties in this case were served with the notice from the Forum for their appearance, but they have not turned up and hence they were set exparte and they remained as exparte throughout the trial of this case.<br /> The points for consideration in this case are the following:-<br /> <br /> (1)Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief from the Forum as<br /> against the opposite parties?<br /> (3) Reliefs & Costs?<br /> <br /> The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the basis of the affidavit filed by the complainant. Exts.A8 and A8(a) were marked during the argument. Opposite parties were exparte throughout the trial of this case and hence there is no evidence in favour of the opposite parties.<br /> Points 1 to III: The complainant filed this case to get the damaged chassis of his vehicle replaced by the opposite parties or to get the cost of the chassis from the opposite parties along with compensation for the monetary loss due to the non-use of the vehicle and for getting the cost of the proceedings. In order to prove his case, he had produced 8 documents, which were marked as Exts.A1 to A8 series. Ext.A1 is the office copy of the legal notice sent to the opposite parties. Exts.A2, A2(a) and A2(b) are the postal receipts of Exts.A1 and Ext.A3, A3(a) and Ext.A3(b) are the Acknowledgment cards showing that Ext.A1 notice was served to opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the sale certificate dated 23.3.2008 issued by the second opposite party. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the Service Maintenance Record. Ext.A6 is the cash bill dated 9.3.2007 issued by the third opposite party. Ext.A7 is the carbon copy of job card dated 22.8.2007. Ext.A8 is the Operators Manual issued to the complainant. Ext.A8(a) is page 2.2 of Ext.A8.<br /> According to the complainant, PW1, he is assured guarantee for maintenance and repairs and damages of the engine, chassis and gear box for a period of 3 years or 3,00,000 kilometers whichever is earlier. The vehicle ran only 60,000 kilometers when the cracks of the chassis was found on 9.3.2007 whereas the vehicle was purchased on 23.3.2006. But the terms and conditions seen in the Operators Manual, Ext.A8(a)(page 2-2 of Ext.A8) is as follows:-<br /> <br /> “EML offers three years warranty on engine & gearbox & one year <br /> warranty for the rest of the aggregates of the vehicle irrespective of<br /> kilometerage”.<br /> <br /> This shows that warranty for chassis is only for one year from the date of purchase. But there is no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention that the above-said defect of the vehicle was brought to the notice of the opposite parties before the expiry of the warranty period. As per Ext.A8, warranty for the chassis was expired on 22.3.2007. In Ext.A7 job card dated 21.8.2007 also, chassis complaint is not entered in the relevant column. There is no documentary evidence to prove the complainant’s case and the complaint and the proof affidavit alone could not be relied upon. Thus, the complainant failed to prove that the chassis complaint was brought to the notice of the opposite parties before the expiry of warranty period. The content of Exts.A5, A6 and A7 does not support the contentions of the complainant. So, we find no merit in this complaint. <br /> In the result, this C.C. is not maintainable and hence dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the18thday of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> President.<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Sam Mathew.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Photocopy of the Advocate Notice dated 24.8.2008 issued by the complainant<br /> to the opposite parties.<br /> A2,A2(a) & A2(b) : Postal receipts.<br /> A3, A3(a) & A3(b) : Postal acknowledgment cards.<br /> A4 : Photocopy of Sale Certificate dated 23.3.2006.<br /> A5 : Photocopy of Service & Maintenance Record.<br /> A6 : Counter sale Cash bill dated 9.3.2007 for Rs.249-11.<br /> A7 : Job Card dated 21.8.2007.<br /> A8 : Operators Manual<br /> A8(a) : Relevant portion of Ext.A8 (Page No.2-2).<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. <br />