Date of filing : 13-05-2010 Date of order : 11-10-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.28/08 Dated this, the 11th day of October 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Sashidhara Rai, S/o.Pushpavathi Rai, Krishna Nilayam, } Complainant Edanad.Po, Kumbala, Kasaragod Dist. (Adv. A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod) 1. M/s. Bannari Infotech Pvt. Ltd, } Opposite parties 252, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu. (Adv. M. Purushothaman, Hosdurg) 2. M/s.Global Trade Link, Shop No.2, Municipal Bus stand, Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT This complaint is again came up for our consideration as per the Order in FA 151/08 of Honb’le State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Shortly stated the case of complainant is that the Road Speed Limiter he purchased for the stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G1938 became defective due to its manufacturing defect. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the Speed Limiter and opposite party No.2 is it’s dealer. Complainant made several written complaints to the opposite parties and finally sent registered lawyer notices. Though opposite party No.1 received notice they did not respond and the notice issued to opposite party No.2 is returned unserved. The Regional Transport Officer checked the vehicle and made the complainant to remit fine for non-operation of Speed Limiter. Therefore from 1-11-2007 complainant garaged the vehicle with an expectation that the opposite parties will come for either repair or replace the device. But they did not come. Hence complainant sustained loss of `2000/- per day w.e.f. 1-11-2007. Since the date of inspection for fitness certificate by RTA was on 6-2-2008, complainant installed a new speed governor. The opposite parties are therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and damages sustained to him. Therefore the complaint claiming the refund of the cost of Speed Limiter `14,000/- together with a cost of `1,00,000/-. 2. Opposite party No.1 filed version. According to opposite party No.1 complainant purchased Speed Limiter on 19-1-07. The alleged failure of device has not reported till 20-11-2007. This will shows that there was no manufacturing defect to the RSL (Road Speed Limiter). The averment in the complaint that he sent several written complaint to the opposite parties is false. The complainant has no case that the vehicle has not plied till 1-11-2007. The averment that the RTO, Kasaragod has checked the vehicle and imposed fine for non-operation of speed governor is false. The complainant has not given any proof for payment of fine. The complainant has not mentioned whether the stoppage of operation of the bus was due to the failure of the device purchased at a cost of `14000/-. The averment that due to non-operation of the stage carriage he had a loss of `2000/- per day is also false. The road speed limiter is operated through electronic control unit. The allegations of failure of the speed governor is not on account of the manufacturers defect. The device can be defective on account of tampering in order to get maximum speed especially in private buses. Opposite party bonafidely believes that the complainant has done tampering or bad maintenance to the device. The 1st opposite party has not offered any warranty/guarantee to the speed limiter device. They have not authorized the second opposite party to issue any kind of certificate of warranty to the buyers on behalf of them. So even if 2nd opposite party issued any warranty/they are not liable to compensate or pay amount or substitute the device. Complainant has not produced any document like cash bill or receipt for the purchase of new road speed limiter as alleged in the complaint. The description and price of the new speed limiter is also not furnished in the complaint. The complainant claimed loss of earning from 1-11-2007 to 6-2-2008 without any basis. The complainant is also not a consumer as defined in the CP Act since the product has been used for commercial purpose. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 returned undelivered with the endorsement ‘left’ instead of taking steps against opposite party No.2 complainant filed a petition stating that he is not seeking any relief against opposite party No.2. Therefore the proceedings against opposite party No.2 is dropped. 4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A7 and X1 marked. On behalf of opposite party No.1 one Ramesh authorized technician of Bannari Infotech Private Limited filed affidavit. Exts B1 & B2 marked. 5. Complainant filed an application IA 225/08 to sent the Road Speed Limiter for testing to Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) (a Research Institute of the Automotive Industry with the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Government of India) having its registered office at SNo.102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune, 411-38 with Postal Adderss PB No.832, Pune 411004 for testing. But ARAI filed their interim report dt.24-4-2009 stating that they have checked the SLD sample for its working. But it is not functioning in their laboratory. So they have opened the cover of SLD unit and verified the working of motor fitted inside the unit and found the DC Motor working independently. So prima facie the problem is in electronic circuit of speed limiter device and they do not have any design/circuit and soft ware details to proceed further and to analyse the problem for that they require help from speed limiter manufacturer. 6. Accordingly though the electronic diagram produced by opposite party has been sent to ARAI, they returned the speed governor with a letter expressing their inability to check the speed governor. According to their letter dated 22-09-2009 their limited expertise is in designing of device and they are not in a position to carry out any analysis based on its design as their institute is only involved in checking the end performance of the device. 7. According to complainant Exts A3 brochure of the speed limiter supplied by opposite party No.2 is a brochure cum guarantee card. In Ext.A3 two dates 19-01-07 to 18-01-08 is seen scribed on the space provided for the seal of Authorized dealer of opposite party No.1. So it can be presumed that opposite party No.2 has offered one year warranty for the R.S.L. 8. From the report of ARAI it is clear that even the ARAI is unable to carry out any analysis based on the design of RSL and their institute is only involved in checking the end performance of the device. This statement is contrary to Ext.B1 certificate issued by Dr.K. Sivakaumar, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology Sathyammangalam. According to him RSL had gone through an extensive test and got the fitness certificate from ARAI on various tests and the fitness certificate is provided by ARAI team only upon successful passing all the tests. So where did the test undergone regarding the correctness of electronic diagram and other internal components before the RSL is introduced in the market is remained unexplained. Opposite party is quite silent about this aspect. No evidence is adduced to prove the matter. 9. A consumer shall not be left helpless in such circumstances when a product is introduced which claims to have approval from the authorities then who are all the authorities and what are all the tests undergone etc ought to have been proved by the opposite parties. But opposite parties failed to bring evidence on that matters. 10. Therefore the complainant is partly entitled for the relief claimed. 11. It is also pertinent to note that opposite party No.1 has not responded to Ext.A4 lawyer notice issued at the instance of complainant and that opened the way for the complaint. 12. Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to take back the RSL (Road Speed Limiter) in as is whereis condition and refund `14,000/- the purchase cost of the RSL with a cost of `3,000/. Time for compliance is limited to one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Copy of Authorisation of dealership given to OP NO.2 by OP NO.1. A2. 19-1-07 Certificate issued by OP No.2 for and on behalf of OP No.1. A3. Catalogue of Shield Road Speed Limited. A4. 20-01-07 Copy of lawyer notice. A5. Postal acknowledgement A6. Unserved notice issued to OP No.2. A7. 19-01-07 cash receipt. B1. Certificate issued by Bannari Amman Institute of Technology. B2.29-4-2005 copy of letter issued by Transport Commissioner. X1.22-09-09 Laboratory analysis of speed limiter device (SLD) PW1,Sashidara Rai. DW1. S. Ramesh Sd/- Sd/.- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | , | | 
