KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:407/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:18..03..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1.M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune-411035, Repd. By its Authorised Dealer, Sri.T.C.Paul. : APPELLANTS 2.M/s Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram, Repd. By its Managing Partner. (By Adv:Sri.Ajith.S.Nair) Vs. Sri.Rajendran.N, Sreepadam, Near CRP Camp, Pallipuram.P.O, : RESPONDENT Thiruvananthapuram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:293/01 in the file of CDF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay to the complainant the price of the vehicle ie Rs.72,560/- with interest at 9% and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.2500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a 4-stroke engine, Bajaj pick up van manufactured by the 1st opposite party after obtaining finance from the financier. He had to pay instalment amount of Rs.1,725/- per month to the financier. According to him immediately after purchase the vehicle developed problems and several times it had to be taken to the 2nd opposite party, dealer. He could not run it and get any profit. Hence he has sought for getting the price of the vehicle with compensation and cost. The vehicle is having serious manufacturing defects. 3. The opposite parties have filed a joint version contending that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect. The vehicle has taken for repairs and repairs were carried out but the complainant is refusing to take back the vehicle. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavit filed by the complainant, the testimony of DW1, DW2, CW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 and D1. 5. The Forum has relied on the report of the commissioner who was examined as CW1. It is admitted that the vehicle was purchased on 2/11/2000 and that the vehicle is with the dealer from 4/7/2001. The commissioner inspected the vehicle on 25/9/2002 and at the time of inspection the speedometer reading was 8220.7Kms. I find that the commissioner has reported certain serious manufacturing defects. He has noted that the battery specified as per the instruction manual ie 12 volt 14 Ah is not at all adequate and that the vehicle needed 2 ½ times more powerful battery. It is also noted that it took about 11 attempts to kick start the vehicle. It is also noted that there was knocking of engine when the vehicle is taken uphill and without load. He has also noted that the complainant had made alterations and the additional weight of alterations would be around 100.Kg. There is no unbalancing due to the modifications. The only problem noted is that the above additional weight will reduce the load carrying capacity of the vehicle. The commissioner has also noted that the cubical capacity of the engine is only 173.5CC which is not adequate. He has also noted that the cylinder required modification and that the same is a manufacturing defect. He has concluded that with the existing condition the vehicle cannot be used for regular running on account of manufacturing defects. The commissioner when examined as CW1 has reiterated his findings. In the circumstances and in the light of the evidence adduced I find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. All the same the counsel for the appellants has sought for the reduction in the quantum of compensation as the complainant has used the vehicle for more than 8000 Kms. It is also pleaded that the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party dealer may be exempted from liability as the defects to the vehicle are manufacturing defects. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is modified as follows:- 6. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- is set aside, the rest of the order is confirmed. It is also directed that the amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order. The complainant is also directed to take execution proceedings if the amount is not paid against the 1st opposite party/manufacturer and only on failure to get the amount paid by the 1st opposite party he has to initiate execution proceedings against 2nd opposite party. The appeal is allowed in part as above. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
