By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The sum up of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of Goods Auto Minidor CB(SLC) with TD 499 LC direct injection diesel engine 3 wheeler goods auto manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and sold by the 2^nd Opposite Party the dealer. The purchase of the vehicle was under the influence of wide advertisement of the qualities and millage of the vehicle. The price fixed for the vehicle was Rs.1,58,000/- the Complainant purchased the vehicle availing a loan of Rs.1,20,000/-. Towards the arrangements of loan the financier collected from the Complainant Rs.2,000/- as service charge. The Complainant has to meet other expenses for the use of vehicle in the road. The loan amount availed was to be repaid in 36 instalments. The vehicle was with the warranty of 360 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle or 36000 kms which ever occurs earlier. At the time of purchase the 2^nd Opposite Party made an assurance that a service station would be started in Wayanad District to facilitate the service to the vehicles. The offer made by the 2^nd Opposite Party could not be performed. The consumption of fuel was less than 5 km per litter diesel. The Complainant when approached the 2^nd Opposite Party they were not in a position to redress the grievances of the Complainant. The vehicle turned to be in a stage of unusable. The service station and the spare parts shop started found to be closed. The operation of the vehicle infect is impracticable. The complainant sent legal notices to the Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite Party sent reply in an evasive manner and disown the liability. The vehicle is with the complaints of over smoke, excess consumption of oil and diesel and less pulling power. The amount financed for the purchase of the vehicle could not be repaid fully except the 5 instalments. The vehicle is off the road since August 2008. The Complainant purchased vehicle for his livelihood. The vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The Complainant is thrown to hardships and mental pain resulted by the deal. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to take back the vehicle and clear dues with financiers and to pay the Complainant Rs.62,500/- with interest.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are not in tone of relationship such as principal and agent. The 2^nd OppositeParty purchased the vehicle in lumpsom from the 1^st Opposite Party and in sale of the so cold vehicle if any deficiency effected the 1^st Opposite Party is not responsible for it. This Opposite Party is not liable for any latches in the repayment of the amount financed. The vehicle was delivered after routine checkup and found satisfactory. The complaint is having some ulterior motives. The allegations are nothing but speculative and baseless. The authorised service station and spare parts shop are not found in Calicut and Wayanad are absolutely baseless. More over the allegation of the Complainant that vehicle is off the road since August 2008 is false. If the Complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly and sufficiently and because of that it would have met with the complaint as alleged. This Opposite Parties are not responsible for replacement or repair of the vehicle beyond the warranty period. Once the vehicle is delivered it could not be taken back. In the result, the complaint is not entitled for any relief it is to be dismissed with exemplarary cost.

3. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are subsequently delated in respect of the order in I.A No.250/2009 dated 17.11.2009.

4. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

    

5. Point No.1:- The evidences in this case consists of oral testimony of Complainant as PW1 and documents Exts. A1 to A5 and C1. The Expert Commissioner has given the oral evidence in this case. The Complainant's case is that the vehicle purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party which is manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party is inherent with manufacturing defect. The purchase of the vehicle was under financial aid and the repayment towards the loan amount could not be done from time to time.

6. Ext.C1 is the report of the Expert Commissioner who is also examined as CW1. The report consists of different Complaints numbered 1 to 5.

1. Engine oil leaking through head breather.

2. Difficult to self start the engine of cold conditions.

3. Excessive blues smoke due to burning of engine oil.

4. Mileage tested without loaded condition is 16 km/litter.

5. Hard gear shifting.

7. The vehicle belong to the model of 2007 type open and the odometer reading is 16380. On examination of the expert commissioner CW1, it is stated that of usage of adulterated fuel cannot cause ejection of engine oil through head breather. The vehicle belonged to the decompression mechanism. Blues smoke is sent out from the vehicle and it is due to the burning of engine oil. The Complainant has not brought out any evidence that there was an offer of 30 km milage per litre diesel to influence the purchase. In it is Ext.C1 seen that the defects noted are the manufacturing defects. The Commissioner Expert has driven and tested the vehicle it is also admitted by the Complainant that the documents connected to the repair of the vehicle are not produced in this case. How ever the vehicle is having manufacturing defects according to the statement of the Commissioner. The contention of the Complainant that the vehicle is to be taken back by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties is not reasonable. The Complainant in this case has not done any amendment in the relief of the plea against the 2^nd Opposite Party. Whereas the 2^nd Opposite Party is deleted in pursuance of the order in I A. No. 250/2009. The vehicle sold to the Complainant is found to be having manufacturing defect and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- The cost of the vehicle stated in the complaint is Rs.1,58,000/-. The Complainant in the instant case has not produced bills or receipts to bring forth in evidence that for the repair of the vehicle such and such amount was spent. The contention of the Complainant to take back the vehicle by the 1^st Opposite Party is found to be unreasonable. The vehicle is driven and tested by the Expert Commissioner. The complaints of the vehicle can be rectified or not and in what extent the amount to be spent for repair is not brought out in evidence. Basing on the report of the Expert Commissioner and over all consideration of the evidence we are in the opinion that the 1^st Opposite Party has to give the Complainant an amount towards compensation for the issuance of the vehicle which is having manufacturing defects.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.20,000/- towards the compensation for the sale of the vehicle which is having inherent manufacturing defect. The complaint is also entitled for an interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till the date of realisation of the amount. This is to be complied within one month on receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th December 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Complainant.

PW1. Johny Complainant.

CW1. C.V.M Sharief. Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party.

Nil.

Exhibits for the the Complainant:

A1. Reply Notice. dt: 30.08.2008.

A2. Lawyer Notice. dt:18.10.2008.

A3. Copy of Receipt.

A4. Service Coupon Book.

A5. Operation and Maintenance Owner's Manual.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.