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 a purchaser of Minidor 3 Wheeler Goods Auto manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is the authorised dealer of the 1st Opposite Party. The purchase of the vehicle was in effect of the wide publicity of the fuel efficiency and other quality of the vehicle advertised by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. The price of the vehicle was Rs.1,50,000/- and because of the shortage of money, the Complainant purchased the vehicle by the finance of one Lunawat Investigation at Sowcarpet, Chennai. The finance was also arranged by the 2nd Opposite Party. The cost of vehicle with the accessories comes Rs.1,60,300/-. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party also informed the Complainant that in order to facilitate the service, an authorised work shop would be starting in Wayanad. How ever for the repair and other services which are to be performed from the authorised service centre, the Complainant had to take the vehicle to Calicut for service. The work shop which started for the service of the vehicle in later was also closed in running of time. The Complainant had to depends on other work shop and no services were provided as offered by the Opposite Party. The wide advertisements were given by the Opposite Party to trap the Complainant and such other unlucky customers. The fuel consumption even in the early period did not come to the level of 15 km per one litter diesel. The offer of the Opposite Party was 35 km per one litre diesel. The Complainant had to take the vehicle from work shop to work shop for repair of the vehicle in different days. The lawyer notice sent by the Complainant inviting the attention of the Opposite Parties to compensate, the Complainant was replied in an evasive manner. The other defects of the vehicle with respect to functions of engine, over smoke, over consumption of oil, diesel and less pulling power. In short, the vehicle was incumbent with the manufacturing defect. The Complainant had to spent Rs.75,000/- towards repair and other charges within a short period. The Autorikshaw purchased by the Complainant is absolutely having manufacturing defects. The 2nd Opposite Party is the dealer who delivered the vehicle to the Complainant. The branch for services opened by the 2nd Opposite Party at Kainatty in Wayanad also closed. The authorised service centre in Calicut of the 2nd Opposite Party also pull down the shutters. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party. To replace the old vehicle which is having various manufacturing defects with a new vehicle free from any defect. To compensate the Complainant with the liability and losses resulted by the purchase of the vehicle.
2. The version is filed by the 1st Opposite Party in short it is as follows:- The claim of the Complainant is only a speculative attempt, the complaint is to be dismissed in limine. The vehicle of the complainant is no more in warranty period and it was in continuous use meeting the distance of 16010 km on 10.12.2006. The fuel used by the Complainant may be of poor quality or adulterated which would have been the reasons for poor performance of the vehicle. Apart from that the complaint filed is under pressure from the financial organisation. Since the repayment of the loan would have become dues and the complaint is with an intension of exploiting the Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is an agent of the 1st Opposite Party. The transaction of the 2nd Opposite Party is not even vicariously connected to the first one. The dealership of the 2nd Opposite Party ceased to exist in laps of 4 to 5 months. In between the customer and the manufacturer there exist no privity of contract. The vehicles are sold to the 2nd Opposite Party and the customers who purchased the vehicle are directly connected to the 2nd Opposite Party. The vehicle delivered had strictly undergone a rigid test of the quality and those which are sold to the 2nd Opposite Party were of good quality unaffected of any complaint. The thorough inspections were held prior to the delivery of the vehicle to the dealer and the dealers allowed the road trials. The allegation of the Complainant that the vehicle delivered are with the manufacturing defects as such shortage in the fuel efficiency, poor performance in pulling capacity that all are connected to the quality of the oil and other ancillaries the requirements which would have not properly met by the Complainant. The vehicle which alleged to be inherent with the manufacturing defect was extensively in use. 3. The warranty period of the vehicle consists of 180 days from the date of purchase and similarly from the date of sale the warranty ceased to exist after 180 days. If the vehicle cross the verge of warranty period the repair or replacement will not be possible in free of cost. It is known to the 1st Opposite Party that the Complainant has not met with any dissatisfaction in the use of the vehicle during the warranty period. The allegation of the Complainant about the service facility are absolutely baseless. It was informed in the replay notice to the Complainant that the vehicle would not be repaired in free of cost, since the warranty period was over. Regarding the loan transaction and other mis management of Complainant the Opposite Party is not answerable. The vehicle was purchased for the commercial purpose and because of that alone the complaint is to be dismissed in limine. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the Complainant and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Party.
4. The 2nd Opposite Party is delated subsequently as per the order in I.A. 248/09 dated 17.11.2009. 5. The points in consideration are:- Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties? Relief and costs.
6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts. A1 to A45 are the documents produced for the Complainant. 1st Opposite Party filed proof affidavit inter alia contenting the allegations of the Complainant. The evidence in this case includes oral testimony along with documents produced. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner experts. 7. The case of the Complainant is that the goods autorikshaw purchased by the Complainant is inherent with defect in manufacture. The complainant in turn to be in a difficult situations. The loan amount by which the vehicle was purchased could not be remitted. Whereas the Opposite Party is on the stand that the vehicle sold was with the warranty of 180 days and it was free from any manufacturing defect.
8. The Complainant was delivered the vehicle on 29.3.2006 the periodic free services which were six in numbers were availed by the Complainant. Among the documents Exts.A1 to A45 the major number of the documents shows that the Complainant spent a considerable amount for the repair of the engine and other vital parts of the vehicle. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who is appointed as the Commissioner to inspect and report of the vehicle No.KL 12/C 4510. The defects noted in the report are engine oil leakage through the head breather, difficult to start the vehicle on Cold condition, emission of blue smoke due to burning of engine oil. Even in the absence of any load the millage of the vehicle is 14 Kilometre per litre and Hard Gear Shifting. On examination of the Commissioner, CW1, it is asserted that the defects noted in the test driving of the 3 wheeler is not because of any in experienced driving of the vehicle or by the usage of adulterated oil. The vehicle is having decompression mechanism. In the oral testimony of the Expert Commissioner it is further reiterated that it is not true to say that the vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect. The Complainant has not shown anything to establish that there was an offer from the Opposite Party that the vehicle would be having the millage of 30 KM/ one litre diesel . The defects which were inherent with the vehicle could not be rectified. It is to be presumed that 3 wheeler sold to the Complainant is having manufacturing defect which is an unfair trade practice and the point No.1 is found accordingly. 9. Point No.2:- The delivery of the 3 wheeler was on 29.3.2006 it is admitted that the vehicle had run a distance of 70000 KM. The present condition of the vehicle is in the unusable stage because of the mechanical defects. The records produced for the Complainant further shows that a considerable amount was spent for the repair of the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.1,50,000/- excluding the other service expenses. Since the vehicle was in use and run the distance of 70000 KM, the replacement of the old one with a new 3 wheeler is unreasonable in the contrary reasonable compensation is to be given to the Complainant for the sale of the 3 wheeler which is having inherent manufacture defect. It is not brought out in evidence howlong a 3 wheeler can be in use in the normal conditions if it is free from any manufacturing defect. We are in the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the one third of the price already paid to the Opposite Party. The sale of the vehicle having manufacturing defect is an unfair trade practice and the point No.1 is found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment. This is to be complied by Opposite party within one month from the date of receiving this order. The Complainant is also entitled for the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the Opposite Parties.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th December 2009. PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/- APPENDIX
Witnesses for the Complainant.
PW1. Hari Das Complainant.
CW1. C.V.M. Sharief. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Wayanad.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party.
Nil. Exhibits for the the Complainant:
A1. Receipt. dt:18.08.2008 A2. Purchase Order Form. dt:08.01.2007 A3. Purchase Order Form. dt:09.02.2007. A4. Purchase Order Form. dt:25.06.2007. A5. Purchase Order Form. dt:30.07.2007. A6. Receipt. dt:29.3.2006. A7. Receipt. dt:25.3.2006. A8. Order Form dt:19.9.2007. A9. Bill. dt:26.10.2007. A10. Bill. dt:23.11.2007. A11. Bill. dt:27.3.2008. A12. Bill. dt:8.4.2008. A13. Invoice. dt:8.4.2008. A14. Invoice. dt:27.3.2008. A15 series (4 Numbers) Invoice. A16 series (2 Numbers) Copy of Invoice. A17 series (2 Numbers) Purchase Order Form and Invoice. A18. Invoice. dt:19.9.2007. A19. Invoice. dt:27.9.2007. A20. Invoice. dt:13.9.2007. A21. Invoice. dt:23.8.2007. A22. Invoice. dt:01.09.2007 A23. Invoice. dt:10.8.2007. A24. Invoice dt:20.6.2007. A25. Invoice. dt:25.6.2007. A26. Invoice. dt:23.04.2007. A27. Invoice. dt:7.2.2007. A28. Invoice. dt:9.2.2007. A29 series (2 Numbers) Invoice. dt:15.12.2006. A30. Invoice. dt:8.01.2007. A31 series (3 Numbers) Invoice. dt:22.1.2007. A32. Invoice. dt:19.9.2006. A33. Invoice. dt:10.07.2006. A34. Invoice. dt:29.05.2006. A35. Invoice. dt:08.05.2006. A36. Invoice. dt:20.10.2006. A37 Invoice. dt:18.4.2008. A38. Invitation Card. A39. Service Coupon Book. A40. Card. A41. Acknowledgment A42. Reply Notice. dt:24.6.2008. A43. Letter. A44. Letter. dt:21.07.2008. A45. Invoice. dt:28.07.2006.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party: Nil. | 
