<br /> COMPLAINT FILED:27-02-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 14.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 14TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.495/2009 & 496/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.495/09COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.496/09 Sri.M.ChikannaS/o.Sri.Muniramaiah,Aged about 36 years,R/at Chokkahalli Industrial Area at & post,Hoskote Taluk,Bangalore Sri.Chandrashekar.K,S/o.Sri.Kenchaiah,Aged about 36 years,R/at No.394, ITI Layout,Garden Road, Nayandahalli,Mysore Road,Bangalore – 560 039.Advocate – Sri.NeelakantaiahV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY No1OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 M/s.Force Motors Ltd.,A Firodia Enterprises,Mumbai – Pune Road,Akurdi, Pune – 411 35Rep. by its Managing DirectorM/s. Perfect Motors,No.127,Lalbagh Road,Bangalore – 560 027,Rep. by its Manager.Advocate – Sri.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the two complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective vehicles and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other relief on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> As the opposite parties in these complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, in the interest of the justice these cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. In complaint No.495/09 complainant purchased Luggage Auto M4 bearing No.KA51-7167 manufactured by OP No.1 from OP No.2 for a valid consideration. In complaint No.496/09 also complainant purchased same kind of vehicle bearing No.KA-51-7258. Now it is the grievances of each one of these complainants that they utilized the said vehicle for transportation of the luggage but they experienced some mechanical defect in the said vehicle. They noticed it after the said vehicle run for about 6,000 Kms. According to them there was a low pick up, fuel consumption was more low mileage, engine oil problem etc. They immediately contacted the OP and left the vehicles for free service. OP is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. On the other hand raised the bill under the guise of replacement of some spare parts. Complainants experienced mechanical defect with the said vehicles as such they are unable to use the same for the purpose for which they purchased. Due to the said defect they are unable to earn their livelihood. This made them to suffer monitory loss also. Their repeated request and demands made to OP to replace the defective vehicle and pay compensation went in futile. Thus they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version the defence set out by the OP in both the complaints is identical and similar. According to OP there is no manufacturing defect with their vehicles. Complainants have used the said vehicle extensively but failed to maintain them as per the manual particulars. The vehicles were tested by the competent authority before release for sale. So the allegation of the complainants with regard to certain mechanical defect are baseless. There is an ordinary wear and tare with the said vehicles because of the bad handling. As and when complainants brought the said vehicles for repairs it was attended too. The spare parts which are not covered under the warranty were replaced and the charges were collected. There is no such expert opinion so as to up held the allegation of the complainants with regard to inherent defect with the said vehicles. Their allegations are bald and baseless. Complaints are devoid of merits. Neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor unfair trade practice. Approach of complainants is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the each one of these complainants purchased M4 Luggage Auto manufactured by OP No.1 from OP No.2 bearing registration No.KA-51-7167 & KA-51-7258 respectively. As admitted by each one of these complainants they did utilize the said vehicle for transportation of the luggage and each one of the vehicle run about 6,000 Kms within the span of first free service. This fact itself speaks to the mechanical conditions of the said vehicle.<br /> <br /> 8. Now it is the grievances of the complainants that after 6,000 Kms they noticed certain mechanical defect with the said vehicles namely low pick up, high fuel consumption etc. Hence they took the said vehicles for repairs to OP No.2. OP No.2 did service of the said vehicles which was free service, some of the parts which are not covered under the warranty are replaced by rising the bill. That act of the OP No.2 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 9. We have gone through the job card, so called complainants narrated by each one of these complainants when they brought their vehicle for free service appears to be ordinary ware and tare. As expected OP has to change the oil and replace some parts. Low pick up low mileage of the vehicle depends on so many factors like load, road condition, etc. Even fuel consumption also depends on the skill of driving. Here we find the allegation of complainant in that regard appears to be bald and vague. <br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the road condition in rural Bangalore, traffic jams there is possibility of mileage problem that cannot be said as inherent mechanical defect in the said vehicles. In addition to that when complainants alleges the mechanical defect of the vehicles burden lies on the complainant to prove and establish the said facts with support from an expert opinion. Here complainants have not lead the expert evidence. They have failed to discharge their burden. There is no such expert report or opinion. Under such circumstances the bare allegations of the complainants in a cases of like nature rather alone cannot be believed. <br /> <br /> 11. The other problem with the said vehicle as could be seen from the entry made in the job sheet appears to be ordinary wave and tare. Under such circumstances we are of the view that the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. There is no proof of there being an inherent manufacturing defect with the said vehicles. When that is so, complainants neither entitled for the replacement of the vehicle nor for compensation. Complainants appear to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint No.495/2009 and Complaint No.496/2009 are hereby dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.495/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in the file of the complaint No.496/2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS<br />