KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.192/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.6.10 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. M/S Tata Motors, : APPELLANTS Passenger Car Business Centre, KO3 Car Plant Sector, 15 & 15A PCNTDA, Chikali, Pune-410501. 2. M/s. R.F.Motors(P) Ltd., Skyline Gateway Apartments, Pathadippalam, Edappally, Kochi-682 033. (By Adv. V.Krishnamenon & S.Reghukumar) vs. P.K.Rajesh : RESPONDENT 5/144, Palliparambil House, Kadalikad.P.O,, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam District. (By Ad.Tom Joseph) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.139/07 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulkam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective motor vehicle to the complainant. At the first instance the complainant claimed refund of the price of the motor vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But, subsequently the complainant was satisfied with the rectification of the defects in the vehicle and so the complainant limited his claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged defects. They also denied the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further submitted that the vehicle was repaired by replacing the engine and starter of the vehicle and the vehicle was delivered on 14.2.2007. The delay in rectifying the defects occurred due to the time taken for getting the engine from Pune. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and witness from the side of the 2nd opposite party M/s RF Motors private Limited was examined as DW1. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked from the side of the complainant and B1 to B4 documents on the side of the 2nd opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the 1st opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with a further direction to pay cost of Rs.1000/- by opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Interest was also awarded at the rate 12% per annum, in the event of failure to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 4. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in effecting repairs of the vehicle purchased by the respondent/complainant from the opposite parties and that the Forum below can not be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.10000/- for the delay in delivering the vehicle after effecting repairs. It was further submitted that there is nothing on record to prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant support the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He pointed out the admission made by the opposite parties regarding replacement of the engine of the vehicle and submitted that the aforesaid replacement of the engine would establish the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the respondent/complainant prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 5. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties as alleged by the respondent/complainant? 2) Whether the Forum below can be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 6. Points 1 and 2:- The fact that the respondent/complainant purchased Tata Indika vehicle manufactured by the 1st appellant/1st opposite party and sold through the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party dealer and service provider is not in dispute. The respondent/complainant purchased the vehicle from the appellants/opposite parties on 17.3.2007 and that thereafter the vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party on 27.3.07. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties replaced the original engine and starter fitted to the vehicle because of the defects in the engine and the starter. It is categorically admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2(appellants) that the original engine and the starter fitted to the vehicle were replaced by new engine and starter. The case of the appellants/opposite parties that the engine and starter were replaced by new one only to satisfy the customer cannot be believed or accepted. The replacement of the engine and the starter by new one would make it abundantly clear that the vehicle sold to the respondent/complainant was having manufacturing defect in the engine and the starter. There can be no doubt to the fact that the engine and starter of the vehicle are important parts of a motor vehicle. It can very safely be concluded that the appellants/opposite parties sold a defective vehicle to the respondent/complainant. The appellants/opposite parties being the manufacturer and dealer of the said vehicle were expected to effect sale of a defect free vehicle to the purchaser. But, in the present case the appellants sold a defective vehicle to the respondent/purchaser. Thus, there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants. 7. Admittedly the appellants/opposite parties replaced the defective engine and starter of the vehicle with new engine and starter. The respondent/complainant, the purchaser of the said vehicle was satisfied with the replacement of the defective engine and starter. So, the respondent/complainant limited his claim for compensation alone. The aforesaid attitude, conduct and approach of the respondent/complainant would make it clear that he was very reasonable in limiting his claim for compensation alone. Thus, it was incumbent upon the appellants/opposite parties to compensate the respondent/complainant for the discomfort, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the respondent/complainant in purchasing the vehicle. 8. The complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. He has also mounted the witness box as PW1 and subjected himself for cross examination by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The evidence of PW1 would make it clear that he suffered inconvenience and discomfort and financial loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There is no reason or ground to doubt the testimony of PW1. It can be concluded that the complainant suffered financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale of a defective vehicle. There can be no doubt that the appellants/opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the respondent/complainant for the deficiency in service on their part. 9. It is admitted by the appellants/opposite parties that they took into their custody the defective vehicle on 27.3.07 and they could deliver the vehicle after effecting repairs viz, replacing of the defective engine and starter, on 16.4.07. It is to be noted that the complainant purchased a brand new Tata Indica vehicle from the appellants/opposite parties on 17.3.2007. The brand new vehicle developed serious problems within 10 days of its purchase. PW1 has deposed that the problems developed just 4 days after its purchase and the 2nd opposite party was informed about those defects. The aforesaid defects or problems developed by the new brand vehicle would definitely cause mental agony and inconvenience to the purchaser. The complainant being the purchaser was very reasonable and he was satisfied with the repairs effected by the opposite parties. In the ordinary course, the appellants/opposite parties being the manufacturer and dealer of the vehicle were bound to replace such a defective vehicle, which developed inherent defects within 10 days of its purchase. 10. It can be seen that the appellants/opposite parties took 20 days time in effecting the aforesaid repairs by replacing the defective engine and starter. It is to be noted that the complainant was put in trouble due to the defects developed by the brand new vehicle. The complainant incurred expenses for hiring taxi for his journey in connection with his employment. He also adduced documentary evidence to substantiate his case regarding the expenses incurred by him. It is to be noted that the complainant suffered financial loss and inconveniences only because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale of defective vehicle. The Forum below can be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-. In fact, the Forum below has taken a lenient view in fixing quantum of compensation. The appellants ought not have preferred the present appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 11. The 1st opposite party had even taken a contention that complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act; but no such contention is taken in the present appeal. The Forum below has rightly held that the complainant in CC.139/07 is a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is to be noted that the complainant purchased the vehicle for his own use. The mere fact that the complainant has used the vehicle in connection with his employment as a consultant cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. The very approach of the 1st opposite party would give an indication that they were prepared to take any untenable contentions. 12. The forgoing discussion and the findings thereon would make it clear that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties by effecting sale of a defective vehicle to the respondent/complainant. The aforesaid deficiency of service on the part of the appellants /opposite parties caused financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, the respondent/ complainant is to be compensated for the aforesaid deficiency in service. The Forum below has rightly awarded 10000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-. The Forum below is also justified in imposing a default clause making the opposite parties liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in the event of default to pay the said compensation to the complainant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be confirmed. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.1.09 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.139/2007 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
