O R D E R.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petition is as follows:

The petitioner purchased a Bajaj Discover DTS Motor Bike on 17..2..2005 from the second opposite party. According to the petitioner the company offers 2 years of warranty or up to 30000 Km of warranty for the vehicle. The petitioner states that after a few months of purchase of vehicle it shows some complaints especially difficulty to start the vehicle after some times of rest, complaints of fuel over flow, chain loose, malfunctioning of switches while riding in rainy season and during time due to some missing problems.According to the petitioner the said defects are manufacturing defect.

-2-

The petitioner approach the authorised service centre of the first opposite party ie. Royal Motors, Kottayam and they tried to cure the defects by experiencing many experiments with replacing the parts. But the complaints still remains as such. The petitioner issued letters dtd: 2..4..2006 and 22..7..2006 to the company and the opposite party has not heed to the demands of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of the KSRTC and he had to reach station for his daily duty in early morning and for that he depends his bike for timely attendence in duty. According to the petitioner due to the defects of the bike, he cannot complete the duty so, the petitioner states that the act of the opposite party by giving a defective bike is an unfair trade practice. So, he prays for replacement of the vehicle with new one or else, if its difficult, he claim of an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to them there was no defect brought to the notice of the opposite party. When the petitioner complained about some starting problems, while the vehicle was brought service station of the 3^rd opposite party for routin service. Opposite party upon checking it was found that no such defect as alleged by the petitioner was there with the vehicle. They contented that if at all any such complaint was felt by the petitioner that was due to the improper starting procedure adopted by him and no such mechanical defect was notice by the opposite party. The opposite party further, contented that the fuel over flow of the vehicle happends only on two occasions. That is when adulterated fuel or polluted fuel was pumped in to the vehicle from the filling station or when there was a functional defect in the float and needle of the carburetor. The opposite party checked the the complaint and found that no such

-3-

functional defect was with the vehicle. According to the opposite party no defect as alleged by the petitioner was with the vehicle and there was no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. Opposite party contented that there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. So, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Point for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part

of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A12 documents on the side of the petitioner and no documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

The petitioner has a defanite case that there is manufacturing defect to the vehicle purchased by him, which is manufactured by the first opposite party. The petitioner has not adduced any expert evicence to prove that there was manufacturing defect to the vehicle purchased by the petitioner. So, we are of the opinion that without any expert evidence we cannot hold that there was manufacturing defect to the vehicle. We are of the opinion so that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite party without proof of manufacturing defect, alleged by the petitioner, So, Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is liable to dismissed. Considering facts and circumstances of the case. No cost is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2008.