KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 830/2004
JUDGMENT DATED : 26.11.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. MAC Agro Agency, HO No.1(VIP),
Town Bus Stand Complex, Palakkad.
2. Hercules Farm Equipments(P) Ltd.,
Regd. Office H.R. 23,
45th Street, 8th Sector, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600 078.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. S.S. Kalkura & Others))
Vs.
RESPONDENT
P.V. Gopinathan,
Arunaravindam,
Amayur P.O.,Pattambi,
Palakkad.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri.K.P. Balagopal)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad dated 31.08.2004. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant respectively.
In short, the complainant purchased a power tiller for Rs. 94,500/- from the opposite party and on the very next day while taking it for registration it was noticed that the engine number and chasis number were not affixed whereby the registration of the vehicle was delayed and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- had to be paid. Because of quality deterioration, the vehicle could be used only below 100 hours in last 3 months. This lead to loss on opposite party was not attending to specific complaints. The charges for damaged parts were levied and no timely service offered as a result of which the vehicle became useless. The vehicle was purchased for his personal use and used it as a self employment to earn livelihood. The complainant suffered a loss due to negligence of opposite party and hence the prayer directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 86,080/- together with 12% interest from the date of the petition during the realization and also replaced the vehicle with another one.
The first opposite party entered appearance and contented through his written version that he has only dealer of the second opposite party and not the manufacturer. The machine was purchased by the complainant after fully satisfying himself regarding it. The machine is assailed temporary registration from the RTO, Palakkad and it is the duty of the complainant to get permanent registration of the vehicle from Joint RTO, Pattambi, where he is residing . There is no defect to the vehicle as alleged and it is only on account of lack of maintenance and service to the vehicle with the damages whatever occurred. The O.P. is bad for non jointer of parties in view of non implead necessary parties like manufacturer. There was 3 months warranty for the vehicle and there was free service of the vehicle and its spare parts as per the directions of the manufacturer. After the guarantee period, the complainant has no right to see free maintenance and spare parts of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service and the prayer is for dismissal of the complainant. Later the manufacturer appeared after receiving the notice from the Forum below and contented in his written version that the O.P. it self is not maintainable and power tiller was sold with engine number and chasis number purchased on the body of the engine block and chasis respectively. Further practical training and instruction manner was also supplied to the complainant. He alleged that there is negligence contributed by the complainant in handling vehicle as a result of which some parts got damaged and the same was replaced with genuine parts thorough first O.P. No money was collected from the complainant the warranty of 500 rupees or 6 months whichever is earlier as already expire. He denied the deficiency service and thus prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
It is a part and parcel of the evidence. The complainant was examined as Dw1 and their witnesses were also examined as Pw2 , pw4 and marked Exts. P1 to P12. On the part of the opposite parties Ext. D1 and Ext. D8 were marked as an evidence. Dw1 is a witness examined from the part of the opposite party is the manager of the first opposite party.
After hearing both parties in detail and perused the evidence the Forum below taken a view that there is sufficient evidence on the side of the complainant to prove that there is a factual defect in their parts. The opposite parties are also not knowing the case otherwise they are having only a case that everything was happened due to the result of mishandling of the machine by the complainant . But there is no sufficient evidence to support their contention.
The Forum below taken a view that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay Rs. 56,080/- to the complainant with Rs. 500/- as dhasti for the legal proceedings and also ordered that failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till realization.
The appellants prefers this appeal from the above impugned order and this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing on this day.
We heard in detail both parties and perused the entire evidence adduced both parties. The counsel for the appellant argued that the district Forum has not cared to have the machine inspected by any expert before coming to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled for compensation. The Forum below failed to appreciate from the evidence that having any deficiency in service due to manufacturing defect from the part of O.P. and as wrongly come to the conclusion that there was defects in their part. There is no explanation from the part of the appellants that they taken any steps to appoint an expert commissioner. In these circumstances the appellant have no legal right to take such contention against the order of the Forum below. Their such right is estopped in this stage and they have no prayer to remand back the case to the Forum below for taking an expert commissioner.
In the available evidence the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency on service and the complainant is also liable for compensation.
It is a strange case. The manufacturer and the dealer jointly punched the engine number and the chasis number on the power tiller only for obtaining the registration. The Registration Authority registered blindly without verifying this tamper. The Joint. R.T.O, Pattambi is a statutory body to look after this quality and for manufacturing standards as per the Motor Vehicles Act. They also helped parties in the case to do wrongful act. It is very seriously and liable to answerable according to law. We do not know what is the conscience of the quality control in our state about the motor vehicles. Anybody can do any thing in our state. It is very pitiable condition.
We are not seeing any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Forum below. It is clearly accordance with the provisions of law. We uphold the decision of the Forum below.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
