Kerala

Idukki

CC/127/2019

Anil Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

S M L Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Lissy M M

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 26.6.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.127/2019

Between

Complainant : Anil Thomas, S/o. Thomas,

Mangarathil House,

Valara P.O.,

12^th Mile, Adimali – 685 561.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

SML Motors,

Muvattupuzha Road,

Vengalloor, Thodupuzha.

2. Piaggio Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

8^th Floor, Skyone, Kalyani Nagar,

Pune, Maharashtra – 411 006.

(Both by Adv: Gem Korason)

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Brief facts of the complaint are as follows :

 

1. Complainant purchased an autorickshaw which is manufactured by Piaggio Ape Company from 1^st opposite party for earning his livelihood on 29.9.2018. He noticed the rusting in the body parts and chasis of the vehicle within some days from the date of purchasing. So he mistrusts the standard of the vehicle. 1^st opposite party had assured 42 months warranty for the vehicle at the time of purchasing. Then he approached 1^st opposite party along with the vehicle. When they conducted water service in the vehicle, painting was damaged at several parts and rusting clearly seen in most of the body parts. (cont....2)

- 2 -

 

2. Opposite party deceived complainant by selling vehicle of poor quality and made deficiency of service to complainant. Hence, complainant prayed following reliefs.

(a) Opposite party may be directed to replace the vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle Rs.2,44,000/- to complainant.

(b) Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

 

3. Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties entered appearance and have filed detailed written version. Contentions of opposite parties are briefly as follows:

According to opposite parties, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on circumstances of the case.

The contentions that this complaint is instituted in result of sale of vehicle having manufacturing defect and poor quality and also in consequence to the denial of repairing the vehicle is false and hence denied.

The vehicle which sold to complainant is not having any manufacturing defect as alleged and the vehicle is of good quality. There is no denial of any services as alleged by complainant.

The contentions that after few days of purchase of the vehicle, complainant had noticed rusting in the body parts and chasis of the vehicle are false. Complainant did not have any allegation regarding the rusting during his regular service intervals. The present allegation after long period of 10 months from the date of purchase is intentional and there is no bonafides in said contentions. The vehicle is purchased after proper inspection and test drive. The warranty manual and details were already given to complainant at the time of purchase of vehicle and there is no assurance or promise as alleged.

The further contention that soon after noticing the rusting, complainant approached 1^st opposite party and after water service, it is seen that there is damage to the painting and also rusting was noticed on more parts are absolutely false. Nothing has happened as alleged and there is no damage to the paint or rusting as alleged.

The vehicle was not properly maintained and used by complainant. After purchase, he had done so many extra works and welding works in the vehicle. It was not done by authorised service centre. Due to the rash and negligent driving by complainant through the mud and off-roads, damage may have happened to the vehicle. The service of the vehicle was not done promptly and correctly. Since the service was not done properly the warranty of the vehicle will cease and complainant is not entitled for warranty. Also, the vehicle met with an accident and hence the complainant is not (cont....3)

- 3 -

entitled to claim warranty and the second opposite party is not at all responsible for any negligent act of complainant. 1^st opposite party had done services as and when the vehicle was produced by complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties.

 

4. Complainant has adduced evidence by proof affidavit and produced 2 documents. These documents were marked as Exts.P1 and P2(series). Ext.P1 is copy of RC Book and Ext.P2(series) are photographs of rusting parts which are seen in the vehicle. Complainant had taken an expert commission report for ascertaining the defects of the vehicle as alleged. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence, despite availing repeated opportunities.

 

5. The issues which arose for consideration are that :

 

(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties ?

(b) If so, what reliefs complainant is entitled to ?

 

6. Findings

 

We have heard the counsel for complainant. Opposite parties have neither heard nor filed any argument notes. We have perused the records. It is admitted in written version that complainant has purchased Piaggio Ape auto from 1^st opposite party. But their contentions that they were given proper service to the alleged vehicle and sold the vehicle which is having no manufacturing defect, have not proved. 2^nd opposite party also has not proved that there is no manufacturing defect for the alleged vehicle. Complainant has took an expert commission report for ascertaining the defects of the vehicle which is alleged by him and commissioner filed the report before this Commission. No objection has raised to the report by any of the party. We have perused the report. Expert commissioner has reported that there is rusting at left side in body part of vehicle which is nearer to the registration number fixed and also there is same in chasis and platform of the vehicle. Commissioner also stated that the reason for rusting is due to the sufficient lack of painting in this area and hydration was there and this may be due to manufacturing defect. Commissioner has also reported that for replacement of defective part of the vehicle will incur expenses of Rs.1,12,000/-. Also, in Ext.P2(series) photographs shows that there is rusting at chasis and platform of the vehicle. Moreover, evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged and therefore is to be taken as admitted. Commission report, Exts.P1 and P2(series) support the version of complainant. It is proved that vehicle was manufactured using inferior metal panels and paint quality was (cont....4)

- 4 -

also poor. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the alleged vehicle had manufacturing defect. Accordingly, we have decided the matter. Complainant has proved his allegations against the opposite parties.

 

7. In the result, complaint is allowed. Both opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the vehicle Rs.2,44,000/- or replace the defective vehicle with giving new one to complainant within 30 days. Also, both parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings, to complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this 16^th day of December, 2021

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., EMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Anil Thomas.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of RC Book.

Ext.P2 - Photographs.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT