IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 256/2013
Thursday, the 27th day of October, 2016.
Petitioner : Thomas Abraham,
S/o. Abraham,
Plamoottil House,
Kurumulloor P.O
Kanakkari, Kottayam.
(Adv. K.A. Bhadran)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Piaggio Vehicles (P) Ltd.
101 B/102, Phonics, Bund Garden
Opp. Residency Club, Pune – 411 001.
(Adv. Thomas Kurian K.)
2) St. George Motors,
Highway Junction,
Cherppunkal, Pala – 686 584
Kottayam.
(Adv. Jaison Jacob)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 19/09/2013 is as follows.
The complainant on 13/09/2012 purchased a APE-MINI vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-35/D-6141 having engine No.GP11H9133636 and chasis No.MBX000VBNJ23365, manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the complainant, he had purchased the said vehicle as a means of income for his family by giving it for rent and he had no other income for his livelihood. According to the complainant, the said vehicle could not be used and on 22/06/2013 it was entrusted with the opposite party. Then he had sent lawyers notice to the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party sent reply stating false contentions. The said vehicle is having 15 months warranty and the defect is within warranty period. He had entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party in time for the periodical services. But the 2nd opposite party has not done proper services. The complainant filed this complaint for the Order directing the opposite party to refund the price of the vehicle and compensation with cost.
The 1st opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose by engaging in experienced drivers. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant himself approached the 2nd opposite party, tested the vehicle and purchased the same after realizing that the vehicle is suitable for his purpose. The opposite parties had not forced to purchase the said vehicle. The complainant has misused the vehicle and overloaded the same with inexperienced drivers. The disputed model vehicle is meant to carry only a weight of 500 kg and overloaded which might have resulted in law pulling power as alleged. The axle was once replaced by the 2nd opposite party on free of cost. He has not done periodical service of the said vehicle at any of the service centres of the 1st opposite party. So he is not entitled to any claim under warranty. The complainant has not intimated with regard to any complaints or defects. The complaints reported to the 2nd opposite party were cured by them. According to the 1st opposite party, the sales of the company are highest in these category of vehicle in Indian Market, thousands of vehicles are being sold and being used satisfactorily by customers all over India. According to the 1st opposite party their knowledge the complainant has abandoned the vehicle at the premises of the 2nd opposite party and left with the key without registering any complaints at the office of the 2nd opposite party or with the 1st opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party, the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects or rather latent defects. If at all the vehicle showed some complaints, it is due to the misuse and overloading of the vehicle. The complainant had purchased the vehicle after test driving and being fully satisfied and convinced of its quality and performance. And 1st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
The 2nd opposite party filed version in the form of affidavit admitting the sale of the complainant’s vehicle. After purchase, he had entrusted the vehicle for 3 times for servicing and it was properly done by them. Then on 22/06/2013 the complainant illegally parked the vehicle at the premises of the 2nd opposite party. Then the 2nd opposite party sent a notice to the complainant directing him to take back the vehicle or register the complaint if having any complaint. But there was no response from the part of the complainant. After that he had filed this complaint. According to the 2nd opposite party the vehicle is not having any defects and the all defects were cured by them. The complainant never intimated about the defects as alleged in the complaint. According to the 2nd opposite party, there is no cause of action against them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof affidavit of the complainant and service engineer of the 1st opposite party. And Ext.A1 to A7 and C1, commission report.
Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had delivered an inferior quality vehicle, and same is not usable due to defects. So on 22/06/2013, it was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party. According to the opposite parties, the disputed vehicle was illegally parked at the premises of the 2nd opposite party. So the 2nd opposite party sent notice to the complainant directing to take back the vehicle or register the compliant if having any defects. According to the opposite parties, the reported complaints were properly done and the vehicle is not having any defects. The vehicle was misused and overloaded with inexperienced drivers, which caused minor complaints. The Expert Commissioner appointed by the Fora submitted the Commission Report and the same is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1, the Expert Commissioner reported that the vehicle is not in a running condition and it was covered 1146 km only. It is to be noted that the Commissioner inspected the vehicle on 27/06/2015. According to the complainant, the vehicle showed complaints on 22/06/2013. The complaint is filed on 19/09/2013. Even on the said date complainant has not filed any application for appointment of an expert commissioner. In Ext. C1 report, commissioner has not mentioned about any serious manufacturing defects to the vehicle. According to him, gear box repairing and right axle settings were done on 10/06/2013 at Aiswarya Motors, Kottayam, the said workshop is not an authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party. The other defects which were noticed by the Commissioner were due to keeping the vehicle idle for a long period.
Here in this case, the complainant was failed to prove that, the vehicle is having any manufacturing defects as alleged by him. So, we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing him a damaged vehicle. So, Point No.1 is found in favour of the opposite parties.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Fora on this the 27th day of October, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of RC book (KL-35-D-6141)
Ext.A2 series : Receipt vouchers issued by 2nd opposite party (3 nos.)
Ext.A3 : Invoice dtd.17/01/13 issued by 2nd opposite party
Ext.A4 : Copy of suit notice dtd.27/06/13 issued by Lawyers centre.
Ext.A5 : cash bill dtd.10/06/13 issued by Aiswarya Motors
Ext.A6 : Copy of motor driving licence
Ext.A7 : Photocopy of property tax dtd.09/06/15
Commission Report
Ext.C1 : Commission report submitted by K. Chinnakaruppasamy
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
