KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.358/2017 & APPEAL No.433/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED: 15.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.336/2016 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

A 358/2017

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Advs. P.K. Muraleedharan & D.R. Rajesh)

A 433/2017

APPELLANT:

(by Advs. P. Jayabal Menon & N.G. Mahesh)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.)

COMMON JUDGEMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          A 358/2017 is filed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and A 433/2017 is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.336/2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (in short the District Forum), against the order passed by the District Forum dated 27.02.2017.   By the said order the District Forum directed the opposite parties to replace the complainant’s vehicle with the same model having same features or to refund Rs.6,07,750/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) the price of the vehicle to the complainant and on such an event the opposite parties can take back the defective vehicle from the custody of the complainant.  Opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs of litigation to the complainant.

          2.       The averments contained in the complaint in brief, are as follows:  On 31.08.2014 the complainant purchased a brand new Maruti Dzire A/C Petrol  car, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  It was registered as KL 36 D 9281.  But the said vehicle caused much trouble on the road, causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  All three free services of the vehicle were done by the 3^rd opposite party.  But after the first service itself the vehicle was found defective on running on the road with a roaring sound inside the car which was immediately reported to the service centre.  After inspection the technicians of the opposite party intimated that the sound may be due to alignment problems and the vehicle was returned after repairing.  But the same complaint was continued.  Then the second free service was done at the mileage of 4768kms. and he reported the said complaint at that time.  According to the complainant even after the third free service the defect reported could not be corrected since the defect was a manufacturing defect of the car.  The 3^rd opposite party, the service centre, it was reported that there was a manufacturing defect of over friction and wear and tear of the left side of tyres.  They reported that it may be manufacturing defect of the tyre.  So the tyres were sent directly to the Ernakulam office of the tyre company and on examination the officials of the tyre company reported that the problem is not of any manufacturing defect of the tyre, it is due to the manufacturing defect of the car.  It was reported to the 3^rd opposite party.  Then the Regional Manager of Indus Motors one Wilson along with the 3^rd opposite party came to the house of the complainant and checked the vehicle on driving and realized the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the vehicle was taken for repairs after providing substitute vehicle.  After five days the vehicle was returned stating that the complaint was that of the stud of the vehicle and it was replaced.  But the same complaint continued.  On complaint the vehicle again surrendered to the 3^rd opposite party on 25.05.2016 for repair.  But after repair the same complaint is continued; i.e. the roaring sound within the car on running was aggravated.  According to the complainant even after repairing in so many times the defect of the vehicle is continued, the roaring sound within the car on running was aggravated and it is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The act of the opposite parties in delivering a vehicle having manufacturing defects amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

          3.       The opposite parties did not appear or file version.

          4.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents produced by him were marked as Exhibits A1 to A12.

          5.       Considering evidence adduced by the complainant the District Forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the 1^st opposite party filed A 433/2017 and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed A 358/2017.        

6.       Since both appeals were filed against the same order passed by the District Forum, both these appeals were heard and considered together.

          7.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

8.       Parties are referred according to their status/rank in the complaint.

          9.       Admittedly the appellants/opposite parties did not appear or file version before the District Forum, raising their contentions.  The main ground raised by the appellants in both appeals is that they did not receive notice from the District Forum or there was no proper service of notice to them.  On going through the records of the District Forum it can be seen that the said submission made by the appellants is not correct.  The complaint was taken on file by the District Forum on 08.12.2016 and notice was ordered to the opposite parties and it was posted for return of notice to 09.01.2017.  Since there was no sitting on that day the case was adjourned to 16.01.2017.  The endorsement in the order sheet of the District Forum on 16.01.2017 is “Petitioner represented.  Notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 served.  No representation called absent.  For evidence of the petitioner to 25.01.2017”.  On 25.01.2017 also there was no representation for the opposite parties and the petitioner has filed proof affidavit and for marking of documents the case was adjourned to 27.01.2017.  On 27.01.2017 also there was no representation for the opposite parties and the case was adjourned to 04.02.2017 on the request of the petitioner.  On 04.02.2017 also there was no representation for the opposite parties.  The complainant was represented and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exhibits A1 to A12.  The matter was heard and it was taken for orders to 27.02.2017 and on that day the District Forum has passed the impugned order.  The Lower Court Records contain the acknowledgment cards signed by the officers of opposite parties 1 to 3, which shows that the notices issued from the District Forum were received by the opposite parties 1 to 3.  So it shows that there is no basis for the contentions of the appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3 that they did not receive the notice from the District Forum or there was no proper notice on them.  No explanation is given by the appellants why they did not appear before the District Forum on 16.01.2017 or on the subsequent posting dates of the case, even after the receipt of the notices from the District Forum.  We consider that there is no merit in the appeals and the appeals are to be dismissed.

          In the result both appeals A 358/2017 and A 433/2017 are dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

SL