BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 1394 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.59 OF 2005
DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL
Between:
M/s Bajaj Tempo Ltd.,
Presently known as Force Motors
(P) Limited, rep. by its Managing
Director, Akurdi, Pune-411 035
Appellant/opposite party no.1
A N D
1. R.Nagarjuna Reddy S/o Sri R.Subba Reddy
aged about 30 years, occ: Business
R/o Moola Brundavanam Street,
Mantralayam, Yemmiganur,
Kurnool District
Respondent/complainant
2. The Proprietor,
M/s M.G.Brothers Auto Motive
Enterprises, M.S.Narsappa,
R/o 7/110, M.G.Chowrastha
Kurnool
Respondent/opposite party no.2
Counsel for the appellant Sri P.Raghavendra Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.1 Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy(PIP)
Counsel for the respondent no.2 Mr.R.Radhakrishna Reddy
F.A.No. 258 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.No.59 OF 2005
Between:
The Proprietor,
M/s M.G.Brothers Auto Motive
Enterprises, M.S.Narsappa,
R/o 7/110, M.G.Chowrastha
Kurnool Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. R.Nagarjuna Reddy S/o Sri R.Subba Reddy
aged about 30 years, occ: Business
R/o Moola Brundavanam Street,
Mantralayam, Yemmiganur,
Kurnool District
Respondent/complainant
2. The Proprietor,
M/s M.G.Brothers Auto Motive
Enterprises, M.S.Narsappa,
R/o 7/110, M.G.Chowrastha
Kurnool
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the appellant Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy
Counsel for the respondent No.1 Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy(PIP)
Counsel for the respondent no.2 Sri P.Raghavendra Rao
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the District Forum, Kurnool in C.D.No.59 of 2005, the manufacturer, Bajaj Tempo Limited, Pune filed appeal, F.A.No.1394 of 2006 and their dealer has preferred appeal F.A.No.258 of 2007.
Both the appeals emanate from one and the same order. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint.
The facts of the case in brief are that on 10.5.2003, the complainant to eke out his livelihood purchased Tempo Trax bearing registration No.AP 21.V.6321 manufactured by the opposite party no.1 and sold by the opposite party no.2. The warranty period for the parts other than engine of the vehicle was 18 months whereas for the engine it was for a period of three years or three lakhs kilometers whichever is earlier. It is the version of the complainant that on 21.6.2003, the torsion bar of front suspension of the vehicle was broken and the complainant informed the same to the opposite party no.1. As per the instructions of the opposite party no.1, the complainant purchased new torsion rod from the showroom of the opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.1278/-. Subsequently, the opposite parties reimbursed the cost of the torsion rod. On 24.9.2003 the torsion bar was broken which was replaced as per the instructions of the opposite parties. Thereafter eight bars at an interval of two months duration were replaced. The opposite parties attended minor repairs and servicing of the vehicle but they did not inform the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
A private mechanic by name Vali gave his opinion that breakage of torson bars was due to defect in the alignment in the chassis which is a manufacturing defect and cannot be cured. There developed some other problems in upper and lower wheel joint, tyre rod ends damaged, steering was not controllable, the height of the front portion of the vehicle used to come down due to which there was uneven wear and tear of the tyres which were to be replaced for every 25,000 kilometers instead of 50,000 kms as also rebutted for four times. For each tyre the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of rebutting. The complainant was forced to accommodate the passengers in some other vehicles and he could not make full use of the vehicle because of its mechanical break downs. The vehicle could not be run for 46,000 kms due to manufacturing defect in it. The complainant incurred loss of Rs.22,000/- @ Rs.2,000/- for kilometer and he incurred loss an amount of Rs.1,000/- on each occasion the vehicle was taken for the repairs.
The opposite parties resisted the claim. The opposite party no.1 adopted the counter filed by the opposite party no.2.
The opposite party no.2 pleaded that the complainant had got repaired the jeep at a private garage, M/s Khaja Mohiddin Auto Garage, Yemmiganaur even though there was an authorized service centre at Yemmiganur, run by the opposite party no.2. On 2.6.2003 the vehicle was serviced at the authorized centre of the opposite party no.2 and on the same day the complainant purchased torson bar and got it replaced in M/s Khaja Mohiddin Auto Garage by violating the terms and conditions of the manufacturer that the customer has to get any repairs/ replacements of his vehicle only in the authorized dealer’s workshop anywhere in India and not in a private garage during the period of warranty. There is no mechanic in Kurnool district having equipment to give opinion in regard to manufacturing defect.
On 13.5.2005 through his letter Vali informed the opposite party no.2 that he had never given any opinion that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect. After the vehicle ran for more than six months, the complainant had changed the tyres, the normal life of new vehicle tyre is six months or 50,000 kms whichever is earlier subject to usage of the vehicle with correct load capacity, road conditions, speed and air pressure. The bills bearing No.382, 345 and 296 does not contain any date. The complainant got registered the vehicle at Kurnool instead of getting it registered at Adoni though he is the native of Mantralayam. The complainant got repaired the vehicle for twice only with the authorized dealer and on number of occasions with a private garage at Yemmiganur where there is a service point. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
The District Forum passed the impugned order holding that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such the complainant entitled for its replacement as also for Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal suffers from any infirmity?
The sale of Tempo Trax bearing registration NO.AP 21V 6321 by the opposite party no.2 and manufactured by the opposite party no.1 is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle developed problems mainly in relation to torsion bar. The opposite parties in their written statement admitted the repair required for several times due to the problems developed in the vehicle. The District Forum appointed K.Satyanarayana, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the vehicle and report the nature of defects the vehicle developed and the said surveyor in his report has stated as under:
CAUSE OF MECHANICAL/MANUFACTURER DEFECTS ON THE PARTS OF VEHICLE
In my presence the said vehicle inspected at Yemmiganur Works shop M/s Khaja Modin Auto Garrage (Annexure-B) where it’s proprietor with his Asst. Mechanics measured Chassis Long members diagonally (annexure-B). the length of long members of diagonally at L/H side and R/H sideshows (107.3+44.4) 152.7 inches and (108.3+45.9) 154.2 inches. The difference between long members diagonally is 1.3 inches.
In manufacturing practically it is not possible exact lengths of Chassis long member but they will allow and give some allowance in lengths. But his allowance of length is also exceeded on measuring the above said vehicle i.e., 1.3 inches. Due to this all attachments of the parts of vehicle on the chassis frame assembly such as shell steering system, Front and Rear Axle, Engine System, Cooling System, Fuel supply system, Steering System, Suspension system badly loosen all mechanical properties of all parts of vehicle. Due to unequal stresses of different types of load unequal distribution confirming totally the vehicle said is not road worthy condition. But in this, insured/petitioner mostly experienced on torsion arm cutting, wear tyres, oil seals changing (Annexure-C & D). hence, he experienced trouble shooting vehicle of parts assembled on chassis frame assembly.
CONCLUSION:
In my opinion as well as confirming that the vehicle registration No.AP21 V 631 is not road worth condition for plying condition on the road. It may cause third party, third party property damaged, own damage of the vehicle.
The surveyor opined that the defects can be rectified by designing and production of the vehicle. The complainant has produced a letter dated 17.12.2005 addressed to him by S.Shaiksha Vali, Proprietor of Khajamohiddin Auto Garage wherein it was stated that he inspected the vehicle and found that the rear side rear engine cross member at LH and RH side is 107.3 inches and 108.3 inches and from rear cross member of engine to front of vehicle at LH and RH side is 45.4 inches and 45.9 inches and “these readings show difference in long numbers of its length”. The opposite parties contended that the proprietor of Khajamohiddin Auto Garage was prejudiced. They relied upon the report of Dr.B.Sreenivas Reddy, Professor and Head Department of Mechanical Engineering, G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, which was submitted to the District Forum. The material portion of the report runs as follows:
The vehicle is having an independent front-end suspension which is supported by the transverse torsion bar connected between thelower control arm and the vhiecle body. The torsion bar (Code No: A-000-230-20-622(LH)/632(RH) acts as a spring to hold upper and lower control arms parallel under theload. It gets twisted due to the forces on the wheel assembly in order to meet bumbs and holes in the road. The recurrent mechanical failure of the said component may be due to one or some of the following reasons:
1. Weak shock abosrong capacity, which puts sudden load on the torsion bar
2. Non uniform distribution of the load on the bar
3. Improper height adjustment of lower control arms on the both sides the vehicle from the ground level
4. Abnormal wear and tear of the arm bushes and their improper alignment
5. Incorrect mounting of the bar which results in impression of stresses other than torsional stresses on the bar
6. Sag occurrence at one wheel
7. Material of the bar may not be meeting required design specification.
He opined that in order to ascertain the exact problem causing repeated break down of torsion bar, the vehicle was to be subjected to practical laboratory testing which can be done at Research and Development Laboratory of the vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, this report of the Professor is in contradiction to the report of Proprietor Khajamohiddin Auto Garage, Yemmiganur. Hence, it is not certain to ascertain whether the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect in absence of any test being conducted at the Research and Development Laboratory of the vehicle manufacturer. In the circumstances, we hold that the finding of the District Forum that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect is not sustainable.
Coming to the question of compensation and damages, a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was ordered to be paid to the complainant was deposited by the opposite party no.2 at the time of filing of the appeal and the said amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant without furnishing any security and the complainant had received the amount by filing competent petition before the District Forum. During the pendency of the appeal, the opposite partyno.2 had filed certificate issued by RTO Kurnool in the shape of additional evidence to show that the complainant sold the vehicle to Smt B.Laxmi W/o Jayaramulu, R/o Nehru Nagar Yemmiganur, Kurnool. The opposite parties contended that now the vehicle is not available for the inspection and sending the same to the laboratory testing and as such the claim of the complainant has been frustrated by the subsequent events after the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Kurnool. It is true that by virtue of the certificate issued by the RTO Kurnool it can be understood that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by the complainant in favour of B.Laxmi. Hence, when the interest in the vehicle was transferred in favour of third person, the complainant cannot have any locus standi to prosecute the case. The amount of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the District Forum and received by the complainant would meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances of the case the appeal deserves to be allowed.
in the result the appeals are allowed and the order dated 28.8.2006 passed in C.D.No.59 of 2005 by the District Forum Kurnool is upheld to the extent of award of amount of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the opposite party no.2 and received by the complainant. The opposite parties are at liberty to receive back the statutory amount deposited by them before this Commission. No costs.
PRESIDING MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.19.06.2009
