By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to take back the TATA ACE 21P vehicle No.KL 73/1684 which costs Rs.2,58,796/- and to return a new TATA ACE 21P vehicle or to repay Rs.2,58,796/- being the value of the vehicle with 5% interest from 15.10.2013 onwards, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased TATA ACE 21P vehicle from the 1^st Opposite party as per the invoice dated 15.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,58,796/-. The Complainant raised the money by loan. There is one year warranty. The 1^st Opposite party promised replacement if there is any manufacturing defect. There after the diesel pipe of the vehicle is broken within a short period. The 2^nd Opposite Party replaced the Diesel Pipe. But it was broken again and again and it was replaced by 2^nd Opposite Party. This was happend due to the manufacture defect and material defect. Due to the defect the vehicle cannot drive for a long distance and cannot take long trip. The Complainant had to stop the vehicle for long days due to the defect and sustained great loss. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. 3^rd Opposite party not appeared and filed version and 3^rd opposite party is set exparte. In the version of Opposite parties No.1 and 2, Opposite parties No.1 and 2 admit the purchase of the vehicle by Complainant. All other allegation are denied by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The vehicle is having one year warranty only. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties admitted that the diesel pipe breakage on four occasions and on each occasions the Opposite parties had rectified the same under warranty. The breakage of diesel pipe happened due to the use of vehicle by improper driving. The vehicle is having no manufacturing defect.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of

Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Ext.B1 to B3. The allegation in the complaint is that the diesel pipe of the vehicle is broken for four occasions. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties admits that the diesel pipe is replaced on four occasions in the vehicle sold to the Complainant. But 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties stated that this defect happened due to improper driving of the vehicle and there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. Here in this case, it is pertinent to note that there is no single piece of evidence to show that the continuous breakage of diesel pipe is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The Complainant did not take any steps to prove manufacturing defect. More over, the Complainant's witness PW2 deposed before the Forum that the vehicle is so far run by almost 25000 kms. The Forum found that the Complainant used the vehicle much and there is less chance for manufacturing defect. So the prayer of replacement of vehicle or repayment of purchase price cannot be allowed to the Complainant as prayed for. But the complaint of the vehicle is to be rectified fully. The 3^rd Opposite party is the manufacturer of vehicle and it is the liability of 3^rd Opposite Party to rectify the defect fully. But 3^rd Opposite party is exparte in this case. Here the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of 3^rd Opposite Party to rectify the defect fully. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No. 1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 3^rd Opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of breakage of the diesel pipe of the vehicle sold to the Complainant at free of cost. The 3^rd Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 3^rd Opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  The Complainant is directed to hand over the vehicle for rectification as and when requested.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:09.10.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Mohanan P.R. Complainant.

PW2. Naveen Mohan Driver.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Arun. Service Manager, Apco Automobiles,

Mananthavady.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. dt:15.10.2013.

A2. Lawyer Notice. dt:05.08.2014.

A3(1) Postal Receipt. dt:05.08.2014.

A3(2) Postal Receipt. dt:05.08.2014.

A4(1) Acknowledgment.

A4(2) Acknowledgment.

A5 Temporary Receipt. dt:08.10.2013.

A6(1) Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:26.11.2013.

A6(2) Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:15.01.2014.

A6(3) Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:19.03.2014.

A6(4) Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:10.07.2014.

A7. Copy of Statement

A8. Operator's Service Book.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of Letter. dt:05.09.2014.

B2(a) Postal Receipt. dt:01.10.2014.

B2(b) Aknowledgement.

B3. To Whomsoever it may concern.