THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.328/2008
Dated this the 25th day of November 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By G.Yadunadhan, President:
The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a Spacio Gold SA Euro II vehicle from the second opposite party on 11.08.2007 by paying a sum of Rs.5,43,205/-. The complainant had prompted to purchase the above vehicle after seeing many advertisements in newspapers as well as in electronic media regarding the efficiency, reliability and long fuel mileage etc. On enquiry the 2nd opposite party promised the complainant that the vehicle will get a mileage of 14 Kms per liter and the same is free from all mechanical defects. Believing the assurance the complainant purchased the vehicle by paying the amount . After running few kilometers the vehicle developed defects to its engine, acceleration, air conditioner and to many other mechanical as well as body party. Apart from the mechanical problem body got rusted in many places. The vehicle was got garaged many times in the 2nd opposite party’s work shop. After the repair the defects still subsisting . It is learned that the mechanical defects, rusting of body parts and shaking of different parts of the body was due to the extensive using of the above vehicle for test drive. The opposite parties suppressed the above fact and sold the vehicle as if it is a brand new vehicle. The act of the opposite parties are clear negligence and deficiency of service. There fore complainant seeking relief against opposite parties directing them to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and replace the vehicle as new one.
Opposite party No.1 after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that complainant had booked for Tata Spacio vehicle only after personally inspecting the same and being convinced with the vehicle. There is no merit or basis in the allegation made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the complainant was lured by advertisements purchasing the vehicle. There is no merit or basis in the allegation of the complainant that he was informed about the vehicle giving 14 lm mileage. Whenever the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party with a complaint in the vehicle they had looked in to the same and such those complaints found existing being minor in nature attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further submitted that this opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant. First opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant as claimed by him. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Second opposite party filed their version stating that it is admitted that complainant had purchased a Spacio Gold SA Euro II vehicle from this opposite party on 11.08.2007. Further it is true that the vehicle got maximum fuel efficiency and it is free from all general mechanical defects. Kt is not correct to say that after running a few kilometers the vehicle developed defects to engine, acceleration air conditioner and also so many other mechanical as well as body parts. The service records kept by this opposite party will clearly revealed that the vehicle was garaged only for periodical check up is provided under owners manual. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration
- Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief from opposite parties? If so what is the relief and cost?
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite party No.1 was examined as RW1 no document produced on behalf of the opposite party. On perusal of Ext.A1- 10 in number series of bill, periodical service bill and no major defects was noticed at that time. Ext.A2 legal notice , Ext.A3 another notice as a reply notice. Ext.A5 brochure. These are the document produced by the complainant. No expert opinion seen produced. Another aspects is mileage shortage. There is no supporting document produced by the complainant. evidence also nothing was brought out by the complainant. The vehicle was continuously defective, complaint was filed on 24.09.2008 after a lapse of one year, more over complainant himself admitted that the said vehicle was driven by a paid driver. As held by Honble Supre Court in the decision reported in II(1995) CPJ I SC at paragraph II where a party seeks the assistance of a driver driving a vehicle he can not be said to be living on the income derived from the vehicle and it can not be termed as self employment and hence such a person can not be treated as a consumer, this aspect again come up for discussion in 2011(1) SCC 525, since there is no doubt to show that complainant’s vehicle was defective and no steps were taken by the complainant to prove the case. There is no merit in this complaint therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of November 2014.
Date of filing:24.09.2008.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1 Tax invoice issued by Koyenco Autos Pvt. Ltd(10 in Nos) .
A2. Copy of Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party dtd.05.04.2008.
A3. Reply notice received from Ist opposite party dtd.21.04.2008.
A4. Reply notice received from 2nd opposite party dtd.24.04.2008.
A5. Brochure issued by the opposite party
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Moidceen Koya(complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1 Shaji (authorized dealer of OP1)
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
