KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 105/2006
JUDGMENT DATED: 28/2/2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M/s Sakthi Automobiles, : APPELLANT
Rehman Builidng,
Thana, Kannur District.
(By Adv.Joseph and Kurian)
Vs.
Mr.P.Kumaran, : RESPONDENT
Nidisha Nivas, Chakkarakkal,
P.O.,Mamba, Kannur District.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/dealers in OP.159/2001 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.17897.75/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a bus chassis from the opposite parties manufactured by Tata Engineering Co. on 29.10.99. The warranty period is 18 months or 150000 kms whichever is earlier. It is also stated that the vehicle is having defects from the very beginning and so many parts were replaced on payment inspite of the fact that replacing was within the warranty period. The opposite parties collected altogether a sum of Rs.17897.75/-. Recently when two wheel drums were found defective the opposite parties asked the complainant to pay Rs.6000/- towards the cost of the same. Lawyer notice was sent on 15.3.01 but no reply was received. He has sought a sum of Rs.17897.75/- with interest at 18% and compensation of Rs.15000/- .
3. The opposite parties have filed version alleging that the vehicle was used negligently by the complainant. It is contended that the service centre is entitled to collect the cost of the consumables and other parts whenever they become defective due to negligent use of the vehicle. The warranty does not prevent from collecting repair charges for repairs not covered by the warranty. After receiving the notice the matter was explained to the complainant in person.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.A1 to A5.
5. The Forum has noted that the bills produced by the complainant are with respect to the repairs within the warranty period. It was also noted that the opposite parties had not produced the warranty card showing the terms and conditions of the warranty.
6. The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that Ext.A5 Operator’s Service Book contained the warranty and hence the finding in this regard by the Forum is incorrect. The counsel has also pointed it can be seen verification that most of the bills produced related to cost of oil charges etc.etc. and also with respect to minor items and items that are subject to wear and tear. It is pointed out that the wheel drums were replaced free of cost. We find that it is the case of the complainant that most of the time the vehicle was having mechanical problems and he had to take the vehicle to the opposite party. As pointed out the counsel for the appellant we find that some of he bills related to oil charge, the purchase of diesel filter etc. It has also to be noted that the complaint was filed about
1 ½ years subsequent to the date of purchase of the vehicle. Hence it is probable that the complainant had not kept the entire receipts of the items purchased. Whatever receipts available were produced. In the circumstances we find that it would be proper to reduce the amount ordered to be paid to Rs.10000/-. The opposite parties/appellants has also directed to pay interest at 9% on the above amount from the date of the order of the Forum ie 14.11.05. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000 is set aside. The complainant will also to be entitled cost of Rs.1000/- The opposite parties are directed to make the payments within 3 months form the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 28.2.2011 the date of this order. The appeal is allowed in part as above.
Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
ps
