KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 556/09 JUDGMENT DATED.6.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. K.V.R.Automobiles, Edappal Branch reptd. the Divisional Manager (KVR Automobiles, Three wheeler division, HQ Angadippuram, Malappuram District) Shaji K, S/o Balan Nair, A1 Quassini Complex, Edappal Post, Edappal Amsom & Desam, Ponnani Taluk. 2. Bajaj Auto Ltd., -- APPELLANTS reptd. by its Area Service Manager/ authorized signatory, R.Sandeep Krishnan, 4th Floor, Manjooran Estate, Cheranalloor Road, ByePass Jn, Edappalli, Kochi 682 024. (By Adv.R.Narayan) Vs. Mr.Radhakrishnan P.C, S/0 Kuttan, Pullanicholayil House, -- RESPONDENT Anakkara P.O, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in OP.140/04 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.77,500/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.4000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a 2-stroke autorikshaw from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.77,500/- on 28.6.04. According to him with a few days the vehicle between defective. The defects like side pulling, shake of bearing, wearing off tyre on one side, swinging of shock absorber, breaking of clutch cable, tightness of reverse gear, oil leak, defective paint etc. occurred. The vehicle used to be stopped while carrying passengers and he sought for the purchase price paid of the vehicle and compensation. The opposite parties have filed version denying the alleged manufacturing defects to the vehicle. The complaints mentioned during the warranty period were repaired free of cost. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1, DWs 1 to 3, Exts. A 1 to A6, B1 series and Exts.C1 the report of the commissioner. 4. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed on 22.12.04. The commissioner inspected the vehicle on 12/08 ie. about 4 years after the filing of the complaint. The commissioner has not noted the audiometer reading as 26892. According to the opposite party the above reading represented the second circle after completing 99999 kms. The commission application was filed only in June 2008. The appellant has produced along with the appeal memorandum the details of the fitness certificate issued to the vehicle dated 3.7.07 which is the computer print out. It is submitted that the CDRF did not consider the above document. The Forum below has noted that the CDRF was not functioning from 2005 onwards and the CDRF started functioning from September 2007 only. The particulars of the fitness certificate produced would show that the vehicle was being plied by the complainant and at least the vehicle has covered 26892 kms. It is pointed out that Ext.A1 to A6 bills for purchase of spares amounted to only less than Rs.700/-. 5. The counsel for the respondent has relied on the deposition of DW1 wherein it is admitted that at about 5 months of purchase the vehicle, the engine had to be dismantled and repaired. Ext.B1 would further show that the vehicle was brought to the service center on 7 occasions up to 5.11.04 ie; within 5 months of purchase. There is no case that the defects were not repaired. 6. We find that in view of the fact as evident from the details of the fitness certificate produced that the vehicle was being plied by the complainant even in 2007. Hence, the case of the complainant that the vehicle is kept inmobile cannot be true. The inspection of the commissioner after 4 years is not of any help to establish the alleged manufacturing defects. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. In the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The office will forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
