DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  16^th  day of  August,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of Filing: 05/07/2018    

     CC/86/2018

P.Gangadharan,

S/o.Pazhanimala,

Proprietor,

Sree Murugan Traders,

Old Bazar, Kollengode,

Palakkad

(By Adv. M/s.K.Sasidharan & G.Abhilash)                                          -           Complainant

                                                                                                  Vs

1.R.V.Imamudheen,

    M/s.Maxim Motors,

    34/251, Meenus Building,

    NH 47 Bye Pass,

    Edappally Cochi – 682 021

2.J.P.Dhiman,

    SML ISUZU Ltd.,

    204-205, Sector 34A,

    Chandigarh -   160 135                                                      -           Opposite parties

 (OP1 exparte &

(OP2 by Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. The complainant claims that he purchased an SML ISUZU IS12 Truck M-1269746 on 12/12/2011 from the respondents. He is still using the vehicle. He purchased the vehicle after being represented that spare parts of the vehicle is available in all districts in Kerala. His vehicle is not working (during 2018)  and   when he took the vehicle for getting service facilities in Palakkad or near to Palakkad, the respondent is not taking any steps to solve the problem of the vehicle as production of spare parts were stopped. Since spare parts are not available, he could not even sell it as second hand vehicle. The complainant is suffering a loss of Rs.3,60,000/- per annum. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the losses suffered by the complainant.

This complaint is filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.3,60,000/-  per year from 2017 till the vehicle is taken back by the opposite parties and for a direction to take back the vehicle at the market value of the year 2017.

2. The 1^st opposite party was set exparte. The 2^nd opposite party filed version denying complaint allegations.  They contended that the matter is grossly barred by limitation and that the points alleged there in are to be proved by the opposite party by adducing cogent evidence and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The following issues are framed for consideration

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complainant has established that he is suffering losses as alleged?
3. Whether  there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
5. Reliefs,  if any ?

5.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavits of parties  and Exts.A1 to A11 on the part of complainant.   

Issue No. 1

6.         Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 12/12/2011. He had driven the vehicle for over seven years till 2018. The complainant has no allegation that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect. His only contention is that the opposite parties had stopped production of the spare parts from 2016 onwards. Hence, this complaint, per pleadings, is not barred by limitation.

Issue No. 2

 7.        The reliefs sought for by the complainant is for Rs.3,60,000/- p.a. from 2017 till date of taking back of the vehicle, which amount he claims as profits by putting the vehicle to use. In all probability,  the complainant marked Ext.A10 bank account statement to prove that he is profiting to a tune of Rs.3,60,000/- per annum by putting the vehicle to use. The  said document namely Ext.A10 would not in any manner prove that the complainant was earning as claimed by him. In order to prove his allegation which is the subject matter of this issue, he had to adduce more evidence to show the direct nexus between the profit and usage of vehicle, loss of profit arising out of non-use of vehicle etc. In the absence of such evidence we cannot presume the losses suffered by the complainant.

            Hence we hold that the complainant has failed prove that he is profiting to a tune of Rs. 3, 60,000/- p.a. from putting the vehicle to use.

Issue No. 3

8.         The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties stopped production of spare parts some time in 2016 and such stoppage tantamount to deficiency in service. None of the documents produced by the complainant proves that the opposite parties had undertaken to produce spare parts in perpetuity. The complainant has also failed to prove that the vehicle could not be run on spare parts produced for similar vehicles, by way of production of evidence. Resultantly, on this ground also, the complainant fails.

Issue Nos. 3 & 4

9.         In view of the findings in the issues 2 and 3, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

            Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed. 

            Pronounced in open court on this the 16^th  day of August,  2022.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                               Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –   Original news paper showing complainant receiving the vehicle  

Ext.A2  - Original  cover note  No.446130 issued by Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Ext.A3 –   Original communication dated Nil issued by OP2.

Ext.A4 - Original communication dated 9/12/11  issued by OP2.

Ext.A5 – Original communication dated 2/9/11  issued by Maxim Motors.

Ext.A6 –   Original Tax Invoice bearing No.MHV346 dt.9/12/11

Ext.A7  -  ………………………. Do  ……………………..

Ext.A8 – Attested true copy of goods carriage permit bearing  No.P.Gd.9/5401/2011

Ext.A9 – Original sales bill bearing No.3218 dt.21/6/14

Ext.A10 – Original statement of account for A/c No.67162818990 issued from SBI

                  Kollengode

Ext.A11 – Original Owner’s Manual

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

 Court Exhibit

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Court Witness

Nil

Cost :  No cost  allowed.  

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.