SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) The Complainant is the Secretary of Global Education Net. The complainant has purchased a new car of the model of “Optra 1.6 LT Royable” from the opposite parties. The car was purchased for an amount of Rs.9,34,912/-. The Registration No. of the vehicle is KL-4/V/7. The opposite party assured excellent performance of the car, while the complainant was using the car he noticed abnormal wearing and noise. The fact was intimated to the opposite party at the time of its service. This defect was not cured even after its repeated services. The tyre of the vehicle was completely worn out due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant demanded the value of the tyres, since the damage was caused due to the manufacturing defect of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint filed alleging deficiency of service and manufacturing defect of the vehicle. 2. The opposite parties filed version separately. The main contention of the first opposite party is the detail investigation is necessary for the adjudication of this case. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction. The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. The opposite party admitted that they were given assurance and representation about their product. The opposite party is liable to cure the defect only as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. They denied the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. 3. The contentions of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:- The opposite party denied nothing of defects at the time of service. For maintaining a better customer relation, they were given 60% discount of the value of the tyres. At the time of servicing , the service engineer of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and no defects found. The opposite party offered replacement of 2 tyres free of cost. This offer was not accepted by the complainant. The complainant has not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle, but they did not respond. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the both parties this Forum raised the following issues:- a) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not? b) Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant, if so what is the rliefs allowable? 5. The complainant gave evidence and examined one witness. He produced 11 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A11. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked one document as Ext.B1. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. 6. The opposite parties admitted the sale of the vehicle and its manufacture. The complainant is a Trust which is a juristic person and can be represented by its Secretary as per its Rules and Regulations. The trust in question is registered under the provisions of Central Act No.22 of 1860 and Act No.12 of 1955 of the Kerala State. Copy of registration certificate is produced and which is marked as Ext.A1. Hence the complainant can very well filed this complaint and maintaining before this Forum. 7. The complainant alleging manufacturing defect of the vehicle and thereby abnormal wearing of the tyres was caused. Abnormal wearing of the tyres of the vehicle can very well be seen from Ext.A5, a letter issued by the second opposite party. The manufacturer of the tyre also inspected the tyres, who confirmed that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres. At the same time they denied the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. It is also pertinent to note that in the version of the first opposite party, in paragraph 18, they admitted that abnormal wear of front tyres may be possible on 3 counts. 1) If there is manufacturing defect in the tyres. 2) If there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle otherwise. 3) If the tyres are not being maintained, particularly with respect to tyre pressure levels, in the manner warranted. At the request of the complainant this Forum appoint an expert for evaluating the condition of the vehicle. The expert was examined as PW2 and his report was marked as Ext.C1. PW2 examined the vehicle in detail, after obtaining the vehicle history card from the 2nd opposite party. In the vehicle history card, it is clearly noted that the complainant was reported “humming noise while running” on 5.10.2006 and 10.11.2006. The vehicle was purchased on 6.3.2006. Hence the complaint about the vehicle and wearing of tyre is established by the complainant. The report of the expert he categorically stated that, “the evidence from the tests corroborate potential defects in the real suspension system of the vehicle which is considered as the source of uneven/abnormal rear tyre wear of the vehicle and the humming noise generated from the rear tyres. The defect mentioned is serious in nature in terms of safety and cost/km. of tyres”. None of the opposite party has filed any objection against this commission report. They have not established that the vehicle in question is free from any manufacturing defect. The opposite parties also admitted that wear of tyre can be caused due to manufacturing defect. Hence this Forum found that the vehicle sold to the complainant by the opposite parties is defective one. The opposite parties have not produced the details of warranty as claimed by them. The opposite parties cited 2 decisions. They are III(2009)CPJ 90 and III(2009)CPJ340. The first decision is applicable in this case, since the complainant is a Trust and they are not entitled to get damages for mental harassment. The second decision is dealt with the defect of tyre. Here the defect is not of tyre, but is of vehicle. Hence the decision reported in III(2009)CPJ340 is not applicable in this case. 8. We already found that the vehicle in question is defective in its manufacturing. In a similar facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (III(2008)CPJ12) direct to replace the vehicle. Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (I(2009)CPJ417) directed to pay the value of the vehicle. We have taken a view that cost of the goods should be refunded so as to end the dispute once for all. As replacement of any defective goods by new goods is not a solution as such, replacement of good may not be up to satisfaction of the Consumer, this may relegate the parties to a second bout of litigation. 9. Hence, we allowed this complaint, direct the opposite parties to pay the value of the vehicle. The complainant has used the defective vehicle for a short period. In such circumstances we are not inclined to allow interest for the value of vehicle. In the result, the complaint allowed and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,34,912/- (Rupees nine lakhs thirty four thousand nine hundred and twelve only) to the complainant within forty five days from the date of receipt of this order. If the opposite parties are not honouring the award within the stipulated period and in such circumstances, they are entitled to get 12% interest per annum from the date of this order. No order as costs. Dictated to the Confidential Asst. transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2010. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - T.K.Harikumar (Witness) PW2 - Sree Prakash.B. (Witness) Ext.A1 - Registration Certificate of the Trust (Photo copy) Ext.A2 - Memorandum of Association (Photo copy) Ext.A3 - Invoice for Rs.9,34,912/- (Photo copy) Ext.A4 - Credit Invoice (Photo copy) Ext.A5 - Letter dated 3.2.2007 (Photo copy) Ext.A6 - Letter dated 14.2.2007 (Photo copy) Ext.A7 - Letter dated 23.2.2007 (Photo copy) Ext.A8 - Letter dated 2.3.2007 (Photo copy) Ext.A9 - Letter dated 18.4.2007 (Photo copy) Ext.A10 - Advocate Notice dated 3.5.2007 Ext.A11 - 3 Nos. - Acknowledgment cards Evidence of the opposite parties:- RW1 - Ashok J. Kansara (Witness) Ext.B1 - Leaflet of the car (Photo copy) // True Copy // By Order To Senior Superintendent Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
