BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 21st day of April , 2010
C.C.No. 174/08
Between:
Mr. Sreenivasulu,
S/o Swamy Setty,
D.No.2-20, Settigari Bazar,
Bandi Atmakur (Post)-518523,
Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District . …Complainant
-Vs-
1.M/s The Premier Automobiles,
Rep.by its M.D., D.No.91-20-2747,
Old Mumbai Pune Highway,
Chinchwad, Pune-411 019.
2.M/s Sri Balaji Automotives, Authorized Dealer of Premier Automobiles Limited,
D.No.27/33, Near Bus Stop, Padmavathi Colony, Mahaboobnagar-506101.
3.Balaji Automotives,
No.889-B, Near International Functional Hall, N.H.7, Kurnool-518 004.
4. M/s Babloo Automotives, Represented by its Dealer cum Proprietor Mr.Samson,
Sy.No.889-B, Near International Function Hall, N.H.7,OPP. Auto Nagar, Kurnool-518004.
5. M/s Sureka Auto,
3-7-112/20/3/B, Near Kamineni Hospital, Nagole, L.B.Nagar Ring Road, Hyderabad-500 074. …Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and opposite parties 2 to 5 are called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)
C.C. No.174/08
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C. P. Act,1986 praying
a) to return cost of vehicle Rs.3,60,000/- with interest or to replace the defective vehicle with a new and defect free vehicle with warranty .
b) to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss of earnings. c) to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for causing mental agony and hardship
d) to pay the costs of the complaint , and to pass any such order or orders which are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased one Mini Lorry from opposite party No. 2 and got delivery of the same through opposite party No.3 at Kurnool for Rs.3,60,000/- with financial assistance of M/s. Sundaram Finance Company . The complainant purchased the said vehicle for the self employment and for earning his livelihood . The opposite party No. 2 issued an invoice and sale letter dated 11-04-2006 through opposite party No. 3 who is the local dealer at Kurnool . After the purchase of the vehicle opposite party No. 3 changed his business under the name and style as opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 5 is the person to whom the complainant handed over the vehicle on 26-05-2007 . Opposite party No. 3 delivered the vehicle at Kurnool. The Registration Number of the vehicle is AP 21 W 5183. The warranty period is limited period of 24 months or covering distance of 50,000 kms which ever occurs earlier . As per the warranty repairs shall be carried out at the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 .Expecting the above warranty , the complainant purchased the vehicle with high expectation . Within 15 days from the date of the purchase the vehicle had started giving the following troubles.
1. Suspension Wheel alignment.
2. Gear Box problem,
3. Houging resulting cut and detachment of bolts repeatedly,
4. Regular break failures,
5. Frequent breakage of tire disks,
6. Leakage of oil,
7. Giving vibration even at low speed,
8. Abnormal sound from the engine,
9. No speed pickup,
10. Threading failure,
11. Breakage of sub-Axel resulting the detachment of tires etc., . On 26-04-2006, 02-05-2006 , 10-05-2006, 24-05-2006 , 03-06-2006, 26-06-2006 , 17-07-2006 , 31-07-2006 and 22-08-2006 , the complainant got it repaired through opposite party No. 2 on several occasions. The defects are manufacturing and inherent defects which cannot be rectified . On 18-09-2006 the complainant and other purchasers of the same type of the vehicles met opposite party No. 3 and gave the vehicles to him to carry out repairs. Opposite party No. 3 gave acknowledgement on 18-09-2006 in the name of opposite party No. 4 by saying he changed his business name. After taking the vehicle the opposite party No. 3 and 4 did not carry out defects and kept the vehicle idle resulting the loss of some valuable parts of the vehicle. On the advise of opposite party No. 5 , on 26-05-2007 the complainant shifted his vehicle from opposite parties 3 and 4 to opposite party No. 5. The opposite party No. 5 did not repair the said vehicle. Due to non running of the vehicle the complainant lost his livelihood at the rate of Rs. 16,500/- per month and suffering lot of mental agony . At last on 23-08-2008, the complainant got issued a legal notice to all the opposite parties by demanding to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle. Despite of receiving the notice the opposite party No. 1 either reply nor paid the vehicle cost . Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable . The complaint is filed for achieving unlawful gain. The complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Act . The complaint is not maintainable . The complainant should have filed the complaint at Mumbai. No evidence is produced to show that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defects. At the time of delivering the vehicle pre-delivery inspection is carried out . No manufacturing problem was noticed. The opposite party No. 1 gave satisfactory services to the complainant as and when he produced the vehicle for repairs. The opposite party No. 5 has informed opposite party No. 1 that on 26-03-2007 when the vehicle was reported for servicing , opposite party No. 5 noticed 72 parts missing in the vehicle and 15 major parts are damaged. The same was mentioned on the job order No.135. As per the records maintained by opposite party No. 1 the vehicle has covered 22,000 kms without having any problem. The opposite party No. 1 cannot be held responsible. The complainant has to specify any manufacturing defects in the vehicle. As per the records maintained by the opposite parties the vehicle has been attended as and when requested by the complainant . There is no deficiency of service at all. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A10 are marked . The opposite parties 2 to 5 remained ex-parte. No documents is marked on behalf of OP.No.1.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by the complainant .
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
Both parties filed written arguments.
6. Point No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the mini lorry from opposite party No. 2 and got delivery of the said vehicle through opposite party No. 3 at Kurnool for Rs.3,60,000/-. The complainant filed Ex.A4 invoice and Ex.A10 sale letter issued by opposite party No. 2 . They go to show that the complainant on 11-04-2006 purchased Road Star 2500 from opposite party No. 2 for Rs.3,60,000/- . Ex.A3 is the sale certificate . In the said sale certificate also it is mentioned that the complainant purchased mini lorry of Premier Limited . It is not under dispute that the vehicle was covered with warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of sale of the vehicle or on the vehicle covering a distance of 1,00,000 kms which shall occur first . It is not the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 21 W 5183 was not purchased by the complainant . Ex.A2 is the registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. In Ex.A2 it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is manufactured by Premier Limited (opposite party No. 1) and the year of manufacturing is 2006.
7. It is the specific case of the complainant that 15 days after the purchase of the vehicle it started giving troubles and that he got it repaired from opposite party No. 2 . The complainant filed affidavit evidence . He did not place any documentary evidence to show that he got the vehicle repaired from opposite party No. 2 on 26-04-2006, 02-05-2006 , 10-05-2006, 24-05-2006 , 03-06-2006, 26-06-2006 , 17-07-2006 , 31-07-2006 and 22-08-2006 . The complainant has not examined any technical person in order to establish that the vehicle purchased by him he suffering from inherent defects which cannot be rectified. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant in order to succeeding in the case has to establish that there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle and those defects cannot be rectified. The complainant did not choose to get the vehicle inspected by a competent engineer who got technical knowledge about the defects in the vehicle .
8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that some of the purchasers of the same type of vehicles from the opposite party No. 2 also filed similar type of complaint before the District Consumer Forum and in the said complaints the opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay the cost of the defective vehicles. The learned counsel for the complainant filed copy of the order in F.A 1857/2007 on the file Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Hyderabad . As seen from the said order it is clear that the District Forum, Kurnool allowed the complaint basing on the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector who was appointed as Commissioner in the said case. The State Commission also taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the vehicle in the said case was suffering from manufacturing defects.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 that in the present case the complainant did not take steps to appoint Motor Vehicle Inspector as Commissioner to know whether there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 . As already stated there is no expert evidence in this case to come to the conclusion that the vehicle purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 is having manufacturing defects. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied on a decision reported in II 2008 CPJ 308 (NC) where in of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission , New Delhi observed that vehicle having manufacturing defects proved , Res ipsa loquitur applicable . No need to refer vehicle to third party . Manufacturing of this model of vehicle stopped , opposite parties jointly and severally held liable to pay price of vehicle along with interest . In the instant case it is not shown by the complainant that the manufacturing of this model of vehicle involved in this case stopped by opposite party No. 2 on account of manufacturing defects. There is also no evidence to show that the vehicles purchased by the complainant and the complaint in C.C. 159/06 are of same model . Each case depends on its own facts. Merely because the complaint in C.C. 159/06 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, was allowed it cannot be contended that the present complaint should also be allowed. The complainant failed to establish that there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by him from the opposite party No.2 .
10. It is also the case of the complainant that he handed over the vehicle to opposite party No. 5 for carrying repairs . Ex A6 is the job order No. 135 issued by opposite party No. 5 dated 26-05-2007 . It is mentioned in Ex.A6 that 72 parts of the vehicle were missing and 15 major parts were damaged . The complainant did not give any explanation for missing of some of the parts of the vehicle. No doubt the opposite party No. 1 is a manufacturer of the vehicle purchased to the complainant . The documents filed by the complainant do not disclose that the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects. The complainant failed to establish that there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by him . The complainant is not entitled to any one of the reliefs prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed .
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 21st day of April, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of warranty policy.
Ex.A2. Certificate of registration of vehicle bearing registration number AP 21 W 5183.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of sale certificate issued by OP.No.2.
Ex.A4. Invoice dated 11-04-2006 issued by OP.No.2.
Ex.A5. Acknowledgement letter dated 18-09-2006.
Ex.A6. Job order dated 26-05-2007.
Ex.A7. Broacher of the defective vehicle.
Ex.A8. Legal notice dated 23-08-2008 along with postal receipts
and acknowledgement card.
Ex.A9. Four un served covers addressed to OP.No.2 to 4.
Ex.A10. Sale letter dated 11-04-2006.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
