BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL

Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Tuesday, the 29^th day of April, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 37/2006

Between:

B. Somaiah, S/o Nagaiah,

Age: about 45 years, Occ: Business,

R/o Narsimhulapeta (V) & (M),

Warangal District.

                      … Complainant

AND

1. The Service Manager,

    Jyothi Motors, Authorized dealers,

    Of Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd.,

    Opp: Forest Office, Hanamkonda,

     Warangal District.

2.  The Managing Director,

     Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd.,

     Pune.

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. P. Surender Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri Y. Chandrashekar,  Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri G.V. Sagar Reddy, Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                    ORDER

                       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant B. Somaiah against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to refund the vehicle sale consideration of Rs.1,18,475/- or to replace the vehicle in good running condition and to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

1)      The complainant approached State Bank of India, Narsimhulapeta branch for securing loan to purchase goods transport vehicle.  The State Bank of India agreed to sanction loan to complainant.  On 7-09-2005 the complainant approached Opposite party No.1 to purchase the vehicle branded as Piaggio pickup van which is make of Opposite party No.2 and paid an amount of Rs.18,475/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was financed by State Bank of India, Narasimhulapeta Branch and Opposite party No.1 delivered the vehicle to the complainant along with vehicle papers and warranty card.  The complainant used the vehicle for three months, thereafter the vehicle was giving trouble for the reason of engine oil  burning.  The complainant approached Opposite party No.1, in turn Opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to approach company show room.  The complainant approached company show room and they attended the vehicle by doing Bore and returned the vehicle.  Again the vehicle was giving trouble and the complainant took the vehicle to Opposite party No.1 on 27-12-2005 and he retained the vehicle for four days and redelivered to the complainant within assurance that the vehicle was fully tested and there will not be any such problem.  The complainant took the vehicle and run for two days, but he find the same problem.  Opposite party NO.1 deputed an expert to inspect the vehicle.  After inspection the expert opined that there were so many mechanical troubles and such troubles happened one in one thousand vehicles and opined to change the engine.  Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notices to Opposite parties.  Opposite party NO. 1 gave vague reply and opposite party no.2 gave reply with an advice to approach Company show room.  As such he filed the present complaint for his redressal.

          Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

2)      It is true that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Opposite party No.1.  The complainant brought his vehicle to Mahabubabad Service Center.  It was noticed that the air filter assembly was broken and the complainant paced a tape around the air filter assembly.  He did not disclose the same until it was discovered during inspection.  Because of continuous running of the vehicle by placing a tape around damged air filter, dust particles went inside air filter as a result Bore piston was damages which resulted in oil Burning.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.

3)      The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-25.  On behalf  of Opposite parties, one J. Muralidhar Advocate and on behalf of Opposite party No.2 Vellai Swamy filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.

4)      Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for grant of Rs.1,18,475/- together with interest 12% p.a. from 7-09-2005 or replace the vehicle in good running condition and with damages and with costs.

          After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

5)      The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the State Bank of India, Narasimhulapeta agreed to sanction loan in favour of Complainant for purchase of the vehicle. As such on 7-9-2005 the complainant approached Opposite party No.1 to purchase vehicle branded as “Piaggio” pick up van which is the make of Opposite party No.2 as such the

complainant paid cash amount of Rs.18,475/- and the remaining of Rs.1,00,000/- was financed by State Bank of India, Narasimhulapeta Branch.  In turn Opposite party No.1 delivered the vehicle bearing chassis No.BFC230960, Engine No.RS73232, gear box No.225324 in favour of the complainant and that the said vehicle was hypothecated with the bank.  Simultaneously, the Opposite Party No.1 supplied all the vehicle papers to the complainant.  The warranty for the vehicle remains 180 days and the said period is also called as warranty period and that the Opposite parties are liable to undertake repairs or replace the defective parts during the warranty period.  Thereafter the complainant run the vehicle for 3 months without any hindrance or obstles and he paid loan installments to the bank regularly.  Consequently, the said vehicle gave trouble to the complainant on the reasons that “engine oil burning”.  Therefore, the complainant approached Opposite party No.1, in turn Opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to approach the Company showroom at Mahaboobabad.  Then the complainant approached the Company showroom and they attended the vehicle by doing Bore and returned to the complainant.  Usually the Bore of the vehicle will be done after running of the vehicle more than 50,000 KM but it was done within a short period after purchase of the vehicle and that the complainant would not find any change in it functioning and he experienced with the same and similar type of trouble or complications.  The complainant was unable to run the vehicle regularly and most of his time was spent for attending repairs to the vehicle and such circumstances, the complainant was compelled to take the vehicle to Opposite party No.1 on 27-12-2005 and that the Opposite party No.1 retained the vehicle for 4 days at their guarrage in Warangal and attended the repairs in doing second re-bore and that the said vehicle was re-delivered to the complainant with an assurance that the vehicle was fully tested and that thereafter there will not be any such problem or so.  Believing the Opposite party No.1, the complainant took his vehicle to Narsimhulapet and run for two days, but the complainant could find the same

problem as engine oil burning. Therefore the vehicle was kept idle at his house without attending any transportation of goods.  Inspite of taking the vehicle on twice to the company show room of Oppoiste party No.1 the complainant informed about the defunctive of the vehicle in turn deputed an expert namely Sri Bheem Shankar to Narsimhulapet.  The said expert Bheem Shankar inspected the vehicle and informed to the complainant that there were some mechanical troubles and that such problems can be happened one in thousand vehicle and that who opined to change of Engine and that the said inspection was videographed and the same is filed herewith.  The complainant is having warranty period even though the complainant is having warranty period the Opposite party No.1 not mechanise the Piaggio vehicle. Thereafter the complainant got issued a Legal notice to the Opposite parties with a request to replace the vehicle since it gives frequent troubles and remain defective ever since date of purchase.  And Opposite party No.1 gave a vague reply and Opposite party No.2 gave reply with an advice to approach Company showroom for getting the repairs of the vehicle on nominal charge.  In usual practice the bore of the vehicle arises after long usage of vehicle but not within a short period from the date of purchase. On the other hand the new vehicle started troubling to the complainant ever since the date of purchase and that its engine was defunctive despite repairs and he spent huge amounts out of his pocket for conveyance, purchase of material, labour charges and other miscellaneous charges towards his lodging and boarding and transportation charges in tune of Rs.1,00,000/- .  The complainant has purchased the vehicle from Opposite party No.1 being the distributor of Opposite party No.2 and delivered a defective vehicle which is oftenly troubling the complainant and that the Opposite parties did not even respond to the requests of the complainant to consider for replacing of the vehicle or change of engine.   Thus the complainant filed the present complaint.

6)      Opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that it is on inspection it was noticed that the air filter assembly was broken and the complainant paced a lape around the air filter assembly.  The complainant did not disclose about the same until it was discovered during inspection of the vehicle.  The air filter was got damaged during running of the vehicle because of continuous running of the vehicle by placing a lape around damaged air filter, dust particles went inside air filter and as a result Bore Piston was damaged which resulted in Oil Burning.  When this was explained, the complainant became furious and abused the supervisor and workers and went away leaving the vehicle at Mahabubabad Service Center and further they stated that the have also addressed a letter to the complainant making it very clear that excessive oil consumption is not the manufacturing defect and they are ready to repair the vehicle on nominal charges.  They have also advised the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and to take delivery.

7)      On behalf of complainant Proof Affidavit of PW-1 and on behalf of Opposite parties proof Affidavit of OP.2 filed.

8)      In this case Ex.A-1 to A-25 no other documents are marked on behalf of the complainant side and on behalf of Opposite Parties no documents are marked.

9)      It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Piaggio vehicle from Opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,18,475/- out of that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.18,475/- and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- financed by State Bank of India.  So also it is an admitted fact that Opposite parties 1 and 2 delivered the vehicle to the complainant and on the basis of Ex.A-1 – Deliver Challan, Ex.A-2 invoice cum Sale letter of Opposite party No.1, Ex.A-3 E Seva Receipt, Ex.A-4 Warranty Manual of Opposite party No.1,  it is clear that the complainant purchased the vehicle and took delivery from the opposite parties. Subsequently the vehicle gave trouble, thereafter he approached Opposite parties and they mechanized the same and the bore was damaged as per seeing the Ex.A-5 to A-9 which are the bills issued by Opposite party No.1.  He spent huge amounts for the said vehicle to get repaired the same and further Ex.A-10, to A-12, it is clear cut that the complainant issued legal notices to Opposite parties.  Even though the legal notices issued to the Opposite parties by the complainant there is no good attempt on the part of the vehicle to got repaired it.  In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Opposite parties and they gave a warranty card i.e., Ex.A-4 .  As per Ex.A-4 – Warranty card, the warranty is nearly 180 days and the said period is warranty period.  Even though there is a warranty, the Opposite parties have not attended properly to get repair the vehicle.  So it is the duty of the opposite parties to get repair the vehicle if the warranty period is there.  In this case warranty period is in force i..e.,180 days nearly 6 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle.  After 3 months of the purchase of the vehicle the complainant vehicle was damaged in repair.  To get repair the vehicle it is the duty of Opposite parties, they have attend immediately to get repair the same vehicle.  Inspite of so many requests and so many approaches to the Opposite parties, they have not attended properly to get repair the vehicle.  In our opinion it is their duty to repair the same vehicle in warranty period.  If the warranty period is over the complainant has to bear the expenses but here the warranty is in force.  In warranty period Opposite parties compulsorily repair the vehicle of the complainant. But in this case they have not attended properly to get repair the vehicle of the complainant it is their fault.  Hence, we answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant against the Opposite parties.

10)    In the result the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed and the Opposite parties are directed to refund the sale consideration of Rs.1,18,475/- (Rs.One lakh eighteen thousand four hundred and seventy five only) to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint jointly and severally i.e.,17-03-2006 till the date of deposit.  The Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only) towards damages and Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two thousand only) towards costs.       

          A month’s time is granted to the Opposite parties for the compliance of

the order.

(Dictated to the Stenogrpaher, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 29^th April, 2008.)

                                                      Sd/-                  Sd/-           Sd/-

                                                Member            Member        President

                                                    District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Affidavit of O.P.1 filed.

                                                                 Affidavit of O.P.2 filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Delivery Challan of Opposite Party No.1
2. Ex.A-2 Invoice-cum-Sale letter of Opposite party No.1.
3. Ex.A-3 E-Seva Receipt, dt. 13-09-05.
4. Ex.A-4 Warranty Manual of Opposite party No.2.
5. Ex.A-5  to A-8 are the bills of Jyothi Motors, Mahaboobabad.
6. Ex.A-9 Receipt of New Refai Ropes Warranty.
7. Ex.A-10 O/c of Legal Notice issued to Opposite parties, dt.31-01-06.
8. Ex.A-11 and A-12 are RPAD Receipts of Post Office, dt.31-1-06.
9. Ex.A-13 and A-14 are Acknowledgement due of Opposite parties.
10.  Ex.A-15 Reply to Legal notice by Opposite party dt.14-2-2006.
11.  Ex.A-16 Letter by Opposite Party No.2 to counsel for complainant,dt.15-2-06.
12.  Ex.A-17 Receipt of Internet world.
13.  Ex.A-18 Bill of Ravindra Studio
14.  Ex.A-19 to A-25 are the bus tickets.

 On behalf of Opposite party.

             NIL

                        Sd/-               Sd/-               Sd/-

          Member          Member        President

                                                    District Consumer Forum, Warangal.