KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO: 61/2008
JUDGMENT DATED:03-02-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
V.V.Divakaran, S/o Appu,
Vadakkath Valappil House, : APPELLANT
Kalavadathur.P.O, Ottapalam,
Palakkad-678 552.
(By Adv: Sri.C.S.Rajmohan & Karakulam.P.G.Manoj)
Vs.
1. M/s Sakthi Automobiles,
Thurakkat, Byepass Junction,
Calicut Road, Manjeri.
(By Adv:Sri.Mathews K. Uthuppachan)
: RESPONDENTS
2. M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
Wagle Estae, LBS Marg,
Thane, Maharashtra.
(By Adv:Sri.T.L.Sreeram)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in CC.98/2005 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint stands dismissed.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Tata diesel vehicle (tipper lorry) of model SK 1613 manufactured by the 2nd opposite party/Tata Motors through the authorized dealer ie, the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was taken delivery on 21/01/2004. It is alleged that from the very date of the delivery the vehicle was having mal functioning and that the same was informed to the 1st opposite party. On the 8th day of purchase the vehicle was taken to the 1st opposite party workshop and it was noted that the vehicle was having the following manufacturing defects, which is numbered as 19 in number that included excess oil consumption, less pulling, less mileage, Hydraulic oil level metre defective, Air clearner bracket broken, noise from silence muffler, self motor defects, sound from steering-dash board side, both doors and glasses shaking both quarter glasses are loose, driving seat vibrating and produces sound, metal sheet for clutch pedal and break pedal broken, broken shock absorber, Air cleaner bracket broken, noise coming from the bonnet due to rubbing, both side cabin foundation are loose, sheet at the bottom of the driving seat platform (sic.), frequent damage to bulb hose (13 times) and leakage of coolant and engine oil foundation broken (13 times). The repairs are all major repairs and had to be done at the main workshop itself which is situated at Manjeri. It was impossible to use the vehicle without rectifying the above problems. The vehicle was taken to the workshop and returned assuring that the necessary repairs were done. The same complaints repeated after 6 days. Again the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop. The vehicle was off the road for nearly one month for conducting repair works. The complainant has mentioned in a table format, the dates, the nature of complaints and repairs done. The dates mentioned are 7 in number in the months of October, February, March, June, July and August. The complainant sent a letter dated:24/8/2004 to the opposite parties mentioning the grievances and requesting for replacement of the vehicle. There was no response. Subsequently a lawyer notice was sent. There was no response to the same also. The vehicle was purchased for eking out the livelihood of the complainant after availing loan from financial institutions. The value of the vehicle is Rs.16.lakhs. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.2.lakhs (enhanced subsequently from Rs.50,000/- claimed in the petition).
3. The opposite parties have filed separate versions containing the same contentions. It is alleged that the vehicle had plied a distance of 60,000.Kms within 1 ½ years. It is stated that the alleged defects required only minor repairs and that there was no manufacturing defects. The vehicle did not have the long list of 19 complaints mentioned in the complaint at any point of time. The complainant is making false allegations. The opposite party has maintained job cards that are singed by the representative of the complainant which will reveal that the complaints narrated by them are not in existence. The defects were rectified free of cost under the terms and conditions of the warranty. The repairs were the necessary maintenance works for a heavy vehicle like that of the complainant. It is also alleged that the other repairs were caused due to negligent use of the vehicle.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 series and A6 series and Ext.C1.
5. The Forum has dismissed the complaint observing that the commissioner has not mentioned the reasons or the basis of his observation that the vibration is caused due to defective spring leaf tension.
6. It has to be noted at the outset that the Forum has not considered the evidence adduced properly. There is no discussion as such. The counsel for both sides have also not made efforts to bring out the facts involved also. The Commissioner was not examined. The Commission report also cannot be stated to be a proper one. The commissioner has not even noted the odometer reading. Although it is mentioned that he is a Chartered Engineer, it is seen that he is not an Automobile Engineer. The Commissioner has given one word answers with respect to the 18 complaints. Except with respect to a few, the rest has been answered in favour of the opposite parties. It is mentioned that the air cleaner bracket was found welded. It is mentioned that there was sound from the dash board side. The glasses were shaking and found removed, the driver seat was found vibrating. The ABC pedal foundation was found cut and welded. Except the above problems the rest has been answered in favour of the manufacturer. As to the case of excess oil consumption he has just answered that it was found normal. As to how he assessed the above matter is not mentioned. From Ext.A6 series of documents produced we find that engine oil has been changed in every two months. The commissioner has further mentioned that the vehicle was having excessive vibration and the cabin shell was cracked in almost all corners. It is also mentioned that the door edges were found cracked and rattling. The control pedal base was found cracked. The driver seat was shaking and the foundation cracked. The whole vehicle was vibrating in empty and loaded condition. He has suspected that the same may be due to defective spring leaf tension and that the same is a manufacturing defect. Of course as rightly observed by the Forum, the Commissioner has not come into definite finding in this regard. The Commissioner was appointed to enter the definite findings as to the technical matters involved. Evidently the commissioner is not an expert. It was pointed out by the counsel for the opposite parties/respondents that the opposite parties have filed objection stating that the commissioner has not examined the vehicle in a loaded condition so as to make an observation that the vehicle was vibrating in empty and loaded condition. The commissioner ought to have been examined. There is lapse on the part of the complainant in not properly adducing evidence to substantiate the case that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects. All the same we find that there are some defects to the vehicle as evident from the physical examination done by the commissioner like excessive vibration, cracks noted and welded parts of the vehicle and as evident from A6 series there is certain extent of excess engine oil consumption. In the circumstances we find that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from 23/6/2005 the date of complaint. The complainant will also be entitled for cost of Rs.3500/-. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 3/2/2011 the date of this order.
Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
