KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 251, 252, & 253/2010
DATED. 25.3.2011
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 251/2010
APPELLANT
Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Gate No. 316, Kasar Amboli(Post),
Pirangut Tal: Mulshi District,
Pune – 412 111 represented its authorized officer
Mr. Sandeep Surve.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri K.B. Arun kumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1.. Ambika,
Poopanayil Veedu,Maradu P.O., Ernakulam
2. Anwar Pillai,
Pillatharayil Motors,
Anthikattukulangara,Nuranadu, Alappuzha
(R1 represented by Adv. Sri. Roy Varghese)
APPEAL No. 252/2010
APPELLANT
Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Gate No. 316, Kasar Amboli(Post),
Pirangut Tal: Mulshi District,
Pune – 412 111 represented its authorized officer
Mr. Sandeep Surve.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri K.B. Arun kumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1.. P.B. Latheesh, Parappoottil House, Kadavanthra P.O.,
Chilavannoor Road, Kochi -20
2. P.M. Ayoob Khan,
Parelil House, Chengal, Kalady P.O.
3. Abu,
Chathananji Moola, Idathala P.O., Aluva
4. Anwar Pillai,
Pillatharayil Motors, Anthikattukulangara,Nuranadu, Alappuzha.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Jagadeesh Prasad)
APPEAL No. 253/2010
APPELLANT
Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Gate No. 316, Kasar Amboli(Post),
Pirangut Tal: Mulshi District,
Pune – 412 111 represented its authorized officer
Mr. sandeep Surve.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri K.B. Arun kumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1.. Vinod Viyayan,
S/o Viyayan Pillai, “Karthika”
Molumpurath House,
Eroor South P.O., Thripunithura,
Ernakulam.
2. Anwar Pillai,
Pillatharayil Motors, Anthikkattukulangara, Nuranadu, Alappuzha.
( Rep. by Adv. Smt. Suja)
APPEAL Nos. 251, 252, & 253/2010
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED. 25.3.2011
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN ; MEMBER
These appeals are preferred against the Common order dated 30.9.2009 in Ops 380/07, 381/07 and 396/08 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant in the respective appeals is under orders to refund the price of the vehicle after deducting depreciation from the original price.
The case of the complainants is that they had purchased autorikshaws by the brand name ‘Parinda’ from the first opposite party which was manufactured by the second opposite party. Subsequent to the purchase the first opposite party closed down the show room without notice. Hence the complainants could not carryout the repairs of the vehicles. Moreover the spare parts of the vehicles were not available in the market, so that they could not ply the vehicle and could not remit the loan availed for purchasing the vehicles. Hence they filed complaints before the forum claiming refund of the price of the vehicles with compensation and costs.
The first opposite party filed version and contented that he is only the dealer of the second opposite party and that the second opposite party failed to supply the spare parts. Due to the non co-operation of the second opposite party and also on account of financial crisis the first opposite party was forced to close down his show room. He contented that the second opposite party is answerable to indemnify the complainants.
The second opposite party in their version contented that the complaints were filed at the instance of the first opposite party and in February 2008 the service Engineer of the second opposite party attended the vehicles and the complainants neither requested to replace the vehicle nor demanded any spare parts. Hence the complaints are devoid of any merits and are liable to be dismissed.
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/second opposite party and the complainants/respondents. There was no representation for the first opposite party/dealer. The learned counsel for the appellant argued for the position that the case of the complainants is that they are attracted by the advertisement/offers of the first opposite party/dealer and there is no allegation against the second opposite party/appellant. Moreover the Forum below failed to appreciate, the customer satisfaction letters signed by the complainants stating that the vehicle had no defects. He also pointed out that the finding of the Forum that the vehicles had manufacturing defects is not based upon any expert opinion and the said finding was arrived at by accepting the interested testimony of DW1, the first opposite party, who deposed to the effect that the vehicles have manufacturing defects. The warranty given by the appellant to the vehicles was for 180 days or 15,000 kilometers from the date of purchase whichever is earlier and that period was over at the time of filing the complaints. The customer satisfaction letters would show that the vehicles had no defects as alleged in the complaint, during the warranty period. Moreover the appellant has not received any specific complaint regarding any manufacturing defects from the complainants during the warranty period. He submitted that the spare parts were readily available in the market and the complainants can carry out the maintenance of the vehicle in any workshop as the spare parts and maintenance works of all autorikshaws of various types are similar. Contenting that the alleged defects occurred due to the rash and negligent use of the vehicles by the complainants, the counsel for the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below.
On the other hand the learned counsel for complainants supported the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Forum below. He submitted that subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle the first opposite party/dealer closed down the showroom without notice and so that they could not carry out the repairs. Moreover the spare parts of the vehicle were also not available in the market. Hence they could not ply the vehicle and could not repay the loan amount which was availed for purchasing the vehicles. Pleading that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the counsel for the complainants prayed for the dismissal of the appeals.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents/complainants it is found that the complainants have not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicles had manufacturing defects. It is also to be found that in the absence of evidence to support the case of the complainants that the vehicles had so much defects as alleged by them. It is hard to support and sustain the order passed by the Forum below in allowing the purchase value of the vehicle after deducting depreciation. Though the complainants were unsuccessful in proving their case by adducing cogent evidence, the forum below fastened the liability on the appellant/ 2nd opposite party based on the deposition of Dw1 the first opposite party/dealer. It is seen from the records that the appellant/second opposite party has given warranty only for 180 days or 15,000 Kms. from the date of purchase of the vehicle whichever is earlier and it is found that the first opposite party/dealer has given warranty up to 50,000Kms. The Forum below has not considered this aspect. In the said circumstances we feel that an opportunity should be given to the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their contentions.
In these circumstances, the order of the Forum below is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
The Forum is directed to give notice to all the parties and dispose of the matter on merits after permitting all the parties to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions, if they so desire. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 9.5.2011.
The office is directed to forward the copy of this order as well as the LCR to the Forum urgently.
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ST
ST
