IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 17.10.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.313/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Haneef, S/o Abdul Rahim 1. Proprietor, East Venice Autos
Kaniyamparambu Makkiyil Building
Lajanath Ward, Alappuzha Sanadanapuram P.O., Alappuzha
Now residing at Kannamtharayil
Kalavoor, Mannanchery P.O 2. PIOGGIO Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
Alappuzha E-2 MIDC, Baramati – 414 133
(By Adv. Anakhan) District, Pune Maharashtra
Represented by its Manager
(By Adv. P.Roy – for opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant has purchased an Ape Truck Plus LMV Goods Carriage from the opposite party for Rs. 3,13,120/- on 5.11.2012. Complainant is a driver and he is doing the job only for his livelihood,. He purchased the vehicle under the assurance given by the agent of the first opposite party, regarding the mileage of the vehicle. Due to the manufacturing defect and also by the use of the sub-standard materials the diesel pipe of the vehicle was bursted on several occasions. Even though free services were done, the vehicle has still manufacturing defect. Complainant had effected repairs and services in the authorized service centers and he is using the vehicle with utmost care and caution. He has to do so many repairing works within the warranty period, but the opposite parties demanded huge amount for the repairing works from the complainant. Due to the defects of the vehicle complainant had suffered huge loss. The opposite party was not ready to cure the defects of the vehicle. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his commercial purpose and as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that complainant purchased Ape Truck Plus LMV Goods Carriage from the first opposite party on 19.11.2012 and the said vehicle is manufactured by the second opposite party. Before the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant each part of the vehicle was inspected by the pre-delivery inspection wing of the opposite party. The complainant failed to conduct prescribed periodical services to the vehicle. The complainant had effected minor repairs from the unauthorized local workshop and the same was not brought to the notice to the first opposite party in time. Complainant failed to produce the vehicle for the second and third free services. The opposite party offered warranty only if vehicle is subjected to all periodical services in the time limit. The allegation that the complaints are due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle is utter falsehood. The careless and insensitive act of the complainant caused much water to enter to the engine through the air filter. The allegation that opposite party charged huge bills for the replacement of spare parts is not correct. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. The opposite party was examined as RW1. The document produced marked as Ext.B1 series.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Point No.1:- One of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer since vehicle in dispute is purchased to use it as a commercial vehicle. According to the complainant, he himself is driving the vehicle in seeking of his livelihood from the said vehicle. Opposite party has not produced any evidence in order to controvert the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint is found maintainable.
6. Points 2 & 3:- According to the complainant, the vehicle that he purchased under the instruction of the opposite parties have so many defects during the warranty period itself. Even after the free services the defects are existing due to the manufacturing defect. But according to the opposite party there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the same was delivered to the complainant at the time of sale after due to the inspection and test drive. They further stated that the complainant failed to conduct the prescribed periodical service to the vehicle and the minor complaints happened to the vehicle of the complainant is due to the lack of periodical maintenance and service. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant he has produced Ext.A4 series the bill for Rs.3453/- issued by the opposite party and Ext.A6 the letter issued by the United Motors and Ext.A7 the bill for Rs.32,500/- issued by the United Motors. Opposite party has produced the job cards as Ext.B1 series (11 numbers) for the works done by the servicing centre of first opposite party. On verifying the job cards it is seen that the vehicle which was purchased on 19.11.2012 was brought to the service center on 19.12.2012 for oil change, low pulling, speedo-meter not working, water servicing switch checking , horn not working. From 19.12.2012 to 13.9.2013, it was brought to the service centre several times for repairing defects of one kind or another. Ext.A4 series show that he has to pay the bill during the warranty period. But it is pertinent to notice that there was no document produced by the complainant to prove that the complaints are existing even after the services done by the opposite party. No independent technical expert report produced in order to prove that the vehicle has manufacturing defect. As per the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2009 CPJ Volume III page 229 the allegation of manufacturing defect cannot be decided in the absence of expert opinion in the form of evidence. On the basis of the evidence produced on the record we have come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint regarding the manufacturing defects in the vehicle are totally false. But while cross examining the opposite party he admitted that the bursting of diesel pipe occurred during the warranty period and it was replaced. He also admitted that the clutch complaint of the vehicle also solved. So it is clear that the vehicle purchased by the complainant had several repairing works during the warranty period. Even though those defects were repaired by the opposite party the defects if any occurred within a short period of purchase caused mental agony and it is to be compensated.
In the result complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. No further amount ordered as to costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Haneef (Witness)
PW2 - Devaraj V.S. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of the registration certificate
Ext.A2 - Advertisement
Ext.A3 series - Receipt and Sales bill (2 Nos.)
Ext.A4 series - Bills (3 Nos.)
Ext.A5 - Job card receipts
Ext.A6 - Certificate dated 25.2.2014
Ext.A7 - Bill for Rs.32,500/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - T.P. Prasad (Witness)
Ext.B1 series - Job cards (11 cards)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
