KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 1230/2000

JUDGMENT DATED:02-11-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

The Managing Director,

Jaya Automotives (P) Ltd.,                                 : APPELLANT

Singanallur, Coimbatore.

(By Adv:Sri.Abdul Kalam Azad)

          Vs.

1.      P.A.Abdul Rasheed,

S/o Abdul Khader,

Puliparambil House,

Pareparambu Road,

Kaloor, Kochi-17.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      Marikkar (Motor)Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Lissie Junction,

Ernakulam, Kochi-18.

(By Adv:Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

            Appellant is the opposite party/manufacturer in OP.1295/99 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,658/- to the complainant on his returning the autorikshaw  and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.  It is mentioned that the amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- will carry interest at 12% from the date of complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the autorikshaw manufactured by the appellant on 6/11/1998 for a sum of Rs.1,61,658/- and Rs.9,250/- was spent for painting.  It is alleged that on the next day of purchase onwards the vehicle developed problems.  He has sought for return of the purchase price and compensation amounting to Rs.60,000/- and cost.

3. It is seen from the order of the Forum that the counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party had relinquished the vakalath and hence no version was filed.  OP2/dealer contested the matter.  The direction is to the 1^st opposite party/manufacturer/appellant to pay the decretal amount.

4. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A41, B1 to B9 and C1 and C2.

5. It is seen that the Forum has disposed of OP.1076/99 and OP.1295/99 by a common order.  It was submitted that the appeal filed over the order in OP.1076/99 was not pursued and hence dismissed for default.  We find that Ext.C2 is the report of the Commissioner in the present OP.  It is mentioned that commissioner has noted that there are manufacturing defects.  We find that the commissioner has inspected the vehicle in January 2000 which will be more than one year after the date of purchase.  It is also submitted that the vehicle is still in possession of the complainant and that he is using the same.  The Forum has directed to refund the entire purchase price.  Counsel for the appellant has sought for reducing the amount ordered to be paid which is the entire purchase price as well as compensation.  We find that there is some merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant. In the circumstances the direction to refund the entire purchase price is modified.  The appellant is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1.lakh of the purchase price to the complainant.  The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.  The appellant will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from today ie 2/11/2010 (the date of this order).

Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.