KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:365/2003 JUDGMENT DATED:5..7..2008 (Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:530/01) PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.Proprietor, Saire Automobiles, T.B.Junction, Neyyattinkara. 2.Director, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune – 422 035. : APPELLANTS 3.Area Service Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Krishnakripa, 39/3584, KSN Menon Road, Kochi – 682 086. (By Adv: Sri.K.Sreekumaran Nair) V. Smitha B.G., Ushus, Azhakikonam, 537/1, Vattavila.P.O, Chenkal – 695 132, : RESPONDENT JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:530/01 in the file of CDRF, Trivandrum and under orders to refund a sum of Rs.31,412/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased a ‘Saffire Scooter’ from the 1st opposite party/dealer on 26..1..2001 for a sum of Rs.34,903/-. She an engineering student was attending the classes using the vehicle. From the very beginning it was having starting trouble, mis firing, head light disorder, body rattling etc. On several occasions the vehicle was subjected to minor and major repairs and every time it took one day to one week for effecting repairs. The dealer was also charging the complainant for the repairs effected. Finally on 17..11..2001 it was taken to the dealer for repairs. Even after a month the defects could not be rectified and the vehicle is still in the custody of the 1st opposite party. The troubles are due to manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Hence she has sought for return of the purchase price amounting to Rs.38,003/- with 12% interest, Rs.2,606/- insurance charge and road tax and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective parties, Ext.P1 to P8, D1 to D12 and C1. 4. Ext.C1 report is submitted by the Service Engineer of the KAL, the Autorikshaw manufacturing company of the Government sector. He has inspected the vehicle at the service centre of the dealer. It was on 16..8..2002 that he inspected the vehicle. The date of purchase is 26..1..2001. It is stressed by the counsel for the appellant that the commissioner has inspected the vehicle after 1 ½ (One and a half) years of purchase. On road test, the commissioner has noted heavy shivering of the front fork. It is noted that the above defect is a very dangerous one and may cause accident and that the above complaint is a major one. The shock absorbing mechanism was found inadequate and the same may cause shoulder pain. He has also noted that the front fork assembly of the vehicle is defective and has to be replaced. He rode the vehicle in the National Highway. At the end of the road test the odometer reading was 2824 Kms. Although there was no oil leak, it was found that glue is used for rectifying oil leak. It is noted that applying glue will stop the oil leak only temporarily. It is also noted that very high force is required to start the vehicle with kick starter and the same is difficult for ladies. 5. The complainant has filed objection to the commissioner’s report alleging that the test run was only for a short distance of over 20 Kms which is not sufficient. It is pointed out that the commissioner has not mentioned the reasons for the frequent non working of the engine. Had he rode the vehicle to a considerable distance in road or in a hilly area, the defects would have multiplied and become more evident. It is also pointed out that the vehicle was in the custody of the dealer and he would have temporarily rectified the defects. The interior parts of the vehicle are of inferior quality and the design faulty. 6. Opposite parties has also filed objection to the commission report disputing his statement that there was difficulties to get the vehicle started. It is pointed out that the fork system and shock absorbing system are designed for such a model and approved by the Automobile Research Association of India. It is pointed out that the word glue used in the job card has been mis understood by the commissioner. The mechanic used the word for convenience for liquid gasket because its texture will look like glue. It is alleged that the report of the commissioner is a biased one. 7. It is pointed out that the vehicle has not been taken delivery by the complainant after it has been left with the respondent for the repairs. It is seen from Ext.D1 the first service job card itself that there was front vibration. We find that nothing has been brought out to discredit the version of the expert commissioner that there was shivering on the front side. It is to be noted that the commissioner has mentioned that the above defect is a serious one. May be that he has been mislead by the use of the term glue. It is the version of the commissioner that very heavy force is required to start the vehicle. The shock absorbing mechanism was also found to be defective. It is also pointed out that the particular model of the vehicle itself has been withdrawn from the market. In the circumstances we find no reason to suspect the genuineness of the case set up by the complainant. All the same we find that the complainant has used the vehicle for about 1 ½ years and has used the vehicle regularly. The odometer reading is 2824 Kms. In the circumstances we find that a reduction of 25% of the purchase price would be reasonable. Hence the opposite parties would be liable to pay only a sum of Rs.26700/- with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of the order of the Forum. The interest awarded at 14.5% appears to be excessive. In the circumstances we find that the order to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- is also not required. Hence the direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- is set aside. The order to pay cost of Rs.2000/- is sustained. The opposite parties will remit the amount within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount would carry interest at 15% per annum. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGANDHARAN : MEMBER VL.
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
