THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.154/2012

Dated this the 6^th  day of February 2014.

            ( Present:  Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                         :  President)                      

                             Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB.                           :  Member

                             Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                       : Member

ORDER

By G.Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a car from the second opposite party bearing Engine No.101A20000073701 and Chasis No.MAT613031ALC09393.  The brand name of the said vehicle is TATA Indigo Manza, white in colour.  The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The second opposite party is an authorized dealer  of first opposite party.  The above complainant was invited to purchase the vehicle through advertisement.  They were advertised the various advantages and positive aspects of the above said  vehicle.  Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant has decided to purchase the vehicle from the second opposite party.  The vehicle was delivered on 17^th April 2010.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.6,43,637/-  It is registered and numbered as KL-56/B8829 under Koyilandy RTO.   The vehicle developed several defects and complaints within a short period. This fact immediately intimated to the opposite parties, but they did not rectify the defects. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against opposite parties directing them to returned the actual value of the vehicle with interest at the rat of 12% and also pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

            Opposite party No.1 & 2 after serving notice entered in appearance and second opposite party filed version stating that the purchase of the vehicle is admitting.  The service history of the vehicle reveals that the vehicle has no major mechanical trouble or any other problems immediately after its purchase. The first service  of the vehicle was done on 08.05.2010 when the vehicle had completed 1491KMs. Second service  was done on 17.06.2010 on completion of 4803 Kms. 3^rd service was done after  completion of 10671 KMS the complainant was reported the non working of power window, switch  of the vehicle. Actually the vehicle was in good condition even now  all the story created by the complainant himself.  Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Points for consideration.

1. Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation? If so what is the relief and cost.

       Complainant continuously absent for the last several postings .  Complainant was not examined or produced any document.  On perusal of complaint itself nothing to reveals any defects of the  vehicle was done at any  of 3 services.  Since there is no documents, Forum can not go beyond the complaint.  Complainant failed to prove their case.  There fore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 6^th   day of February 2014.

Date of filing:04.04.2012.

  SD/-PRESIDENT                                         SD/- MEMBER                                       SD/-  MEMBER

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.