By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party to get loss, replace the vehicle or to refund the value of the vehicle and compensation due to the supply of defective vehicle.
2. Brief of the complaint:- On 14.08.2010 the complainant purchased a goods Mahindra Gio from Kalpaka Motors, Calicut which is the product of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and the company had been assured that service and spare parts are available in Wayanad District, through Friends motors, Padinjarathara to whom the duty of service of the vehicle was assigned by Kalpaka Motors. On 17.11.2010 a complaint in the housing of the vehicle was developed and complainant had handed over the vehicle to the service center at Padinjarathara on 11.12.2010, since it was not fit for service and they repaired it and for which the company has given Rs.4,200/- as compensation to the complainant. Thereafter on 09.02.2011 the same defect got developed and complainant handed over the vehicle to carry out the repair. But till today the vehicle is not returned to the complainant after rectification. To remit the loan installments complainant had been borrowing money from others. On several occassions complainant contacted the seller, Kalpaka Motors for rectification of the defect but they kept replying “there is no stock of spare parts” such being the pathetic condition during warranty period, complainant suspect what would be the situation when the period ends. Since the vehicle is not roadworthy and used very less period the complainant suffered much difficulty and financial loss. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the same. Hence the opposite parties may be directed to compensate the loss of income of Rs.10,000/- as damages and since there is no stock of spare parts required to rectify the vehicle before the warranty period the vehicle may be ordered to be exchanged with another vehicle or else the amount paid against the cost of the vehicle may be returned with 12% of interest and to pay cost and compensation.
2. Notices were served to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 and 2 field version, others set ex-parte. In the version, opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 also filed version denying all the allegation in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.C1 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Owners Manual and service Book of the vehicle KL 12 E 3903. Ext.A2 is the Registration Details of the vehicle KL 12 E 3903. Ext.A3 is the copy of Driving License of complainant. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner Report. In Ext.C1 it is stated that Sri. Anoop has purchased a Mahindra GiO Light Goods Vehicle from M/s. Kalpaka Motors Kozhikode on 14.05.2010. The vehicle Registered at Regional Transport Office, Wayanad and obtained Registration Number KL 12 E 3903. The vehicle developed different mechanical complaints and repaired at M/s. Friends Auto Garage at Padinjarathara, with the advice of the dealer as it is the authorized service center of M/s. Mahindra Gio. At that time Mr. Rijo Scaria was the proprietor of the service center. Evidence of previous repair done in the vehicle has been recorded in the service book and signed by Rijo. As per the direction of the Forum, I have collected details regarding the whereabouts of the vehicle from the Registered owner On 12.06.2012. I have made a spot inspection. The vehicle found garaged in an open place, in abandoned condition near Friends Auto Garage, Padinjarathara. The vehicle brought their to repair or replace broken front suspension lower bumber. The vehicle had been not repaired till date or not protected from destruction. The present condition of the vehicle is so poor. The wheels are embedded is mud and body spoiled a lot. The vehicle was completely off road for the last one year making severe financial crisis to the owner since it was his livelihood. The above facts clearly show that there is negligence on the part of this dealer in taking care of the vehicle as guaranteed. Mr. Rijo Scaria has stated that he left the workshop and has no responsibility for the present condition of the vehicle. He has not given any assurance regarding the service and maintenance of his vehicle. The registered owner has to sent the vehicle to Kozhikode for repair. The vehicle brought to the present place with out his knowledge. However this dealer has to answer for all the grievances made to the customer. The grievances of the petitioner is hundred percent true and genuine.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and denied all the allegations in the complaint and examined as OPW1. Opposite party No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side
of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- On considering the Commissioner Report, the Forum is of the opinion that the vehicle is entrusted to opposite party No.3 and not repaired till today. It is a clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1. Since opposite party No.3 is their authorized agent. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 is liable to repair the vehicle in to running condition and also liable to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the vehicle in to the running condition and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party No.1 is directed to comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:08.04.2011. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Anoop. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Manoj Kumar. Service Manager, KTC Kakkavayal.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Owners Manual.
A2. Copy of Registration Details.
A3. Copy of Driving License.
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:12.06.2012.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
