BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Wednesday, the 21st day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 91/2003
Between:
Mohammad Umar Ali, S/o late Farooq Ali,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Business,(Owner of Swaraj
Mazda Vehicle bearing No.AP 36 V 3639),
R/o H.No.3-1-392, Kakatiya Colony,
Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Star Motors,
Spares, Sales and Services, Warangal,
Rep. by Sri syed Habeeb,
Authorised Dealer for Swaraj Mazda,
H.No.11-23-313/B, L.B.Nagar,
Near Swarna Palace, Warangal District.
2. Swaraj Mazda Limited,
204-205, Sector 34-A, Chanigarh,
Punjab – 160 002.
Rep. by M.D.K.Manoher Singh.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. K.Ramesh Babu, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri Ch.Chidambarnath, 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 Md.Umar Ali against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of agreement and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant purchased new vehicle directly from Opposite party No.1 bearing Chassis NO.RKZGL 4BM 0055498 forRs.6,25,901/- and the said vehicle was registered as AP 36 V 3638 and given guarantee for 2 years. While the complainant transporting Tomatoes in the vehicle suddenly stopped due to mechanical defect in the engine. The complainant lost regular income for transporting tomatoes on agreement and sustained heavy loss. The complainant brought to the notice of Opposite parties, they paid deaf ear and did not make good of theloss. As such the complainant got issued legal notice dated 24-3-02. The Opposite parties gave reply stating that the fault is caused due to the act of driver but not on its part. As such the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.
Opposite party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
The contention of the Opposite parties is that prior to the purchasing of the said vehicle it is in good condition because of irregular maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant the same was damaged for this Opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages.
Opposite party No.1 filed a Memo adopting the Written Version filed by the Opposite party No.2.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of Opposite party No.1 Syed Habeeb and on behalf of opposite party NO.2 one P. Satyanarayana filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-9.
NO arguments advanced by both side parties and both side Advocates even though this Forum granted ample time for the Advocates to argue the matter but they have not came forward and they are not advanced any arguments.
After gone through the material and documents before this Forum, our reasons are like this:
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to grant of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages against Oppoiste party NO.2, Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of seizure, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss incurred for causing loss, Rs.50,000/- towards repairing the vehicle and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages.
For this our answer is that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the Opposite parties. Because it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a new vehicle directly from Opposite party No.1 for Rs.6,25,901/- and the said vehicle registered as AP 36 V 3638 and the was was given a guarantee of two years. After purchasing of the same the complainant engaged the said vehicle for transporting Tomatoes from Warangal to Mahabubnagar under an Agreement. Later when the vehicle reached Jadcherla while he transporting Tomatoes the engine of the vehicle was seized and suddenly stopped due to mechanical defect in the engine and as such the complainant could not deliver Tomatoes to Mahabubnagar. Thereafter the vehicle was kept at Gurrage at Jadcherla for a period of 45 days and got repaired by spending huge amounts. The complainant lost regular income for transporting tomatoes on agreement. Thereafter the said vehicle again got seized the engine at Hyderabad and the complainant spent huge amount for getting repaired the same. This time the vehicle seized for same mechanical defect and at first instance Rs.30,000/- second time Rs.20,000/- he has spent for repairing Due to the defect in manufacturing the complainant has faced the miserable condition and lost his only source of income and put to hard ship.
[
The contention of the Opposite parties is that prior to the purchasing of the said vehicle it is in good condition because of irregular maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant the same was damaged for this Opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages.
It is clear that as per warranty in between the company and complainant is that this warranty shall not apply to or to include repair or replacement not as a result of defects in material or workmanship of the manufacturer but as a result of I) accident and lack of proper maintenance, to affect adversely its stability or reliability”. So the complainant has no right to claim damages from the Opposite parties. As there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle and further Opposite party No.1 informed by the Dealer at Mahabubabad and after seizing of the vehicle the vehicle was brought to M/s Divya Automobiles where the complainant he himself admitted that the engine was seized due to lack of proper maintenance on the part of the complainant and his driver. Therefore the complaint is liable tobe dismissed. And further by the time of delivering vehicle to the complaint it is upto the mark and quality and also no manufacturing defect. As per Opposite party No.2 he is the person who attended the repair of the vehicle in question of the complainant on 18-12-02 when the said vehicle was with Divya Automobiles, when he has attended the vehicle he noticed that the seizure of the engine of the vehicle due to lack of water in Radiator, 15 pipes are blocked Upper hase leakage. He further noticed that temperature meter and bazar is working. He further found that the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which results the seizer of the vehicle and accordingly he reduced his opinion into writing and which was duly served on the complainant who signed on the said copy of opinion on 24-12-02. The complainant did not disclose that the fact before this Forum and got filed with false allegations. He categorically mentioned in the job card and advised the complainant to replacement of cylinder block in the engine. There is no proper response on the part of the complainant. Whatever Opposite party No.2 has stated they are in a correct manner. As per Ex.B-5 and B-8 and as per the version of the Opposite parties and the documents filed by Opposite parties it is clear cut the vehicle was damaged due to lack of water in Radiator 15 pipes are blocked Upper hase leakage temperature meter and bazar is working due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. So it is not the fault of the Opposite parties it is the duty of the complainant prior to the purchase of the vehicle only he has to thoroughly check and after satisfaction only he has to take the vehicle but here the complainant purchased the vehicle, after purchase his question is with regard to seizure of the engine now. He has no locusstandi i.e., after purchase of the vehicle. When he has no locusstandi to question about the seizure of the engine certainly the Opposite parties are not liable to pay anything to the complainant whatever the complainant asked in his prayer.
For the foregoing reasons given by us we come to the conclusion that we see no ground to allow this petition. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of Opposite parties against the complainant.
Issue nO.2: To what relief:- The main point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant, this point also decided in favour of Opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 21st May, 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.2filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 O/c of legal notice issued Opposite No.1, dt.24-03-2003.
- Ex.A-2 Acknowledgment due.
- Ex.A-3 Reply to legal notice, dated 14-04-2003.
- Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 Original cash receipts
- Ex.A-6 Form-23, Form of Certificate of Registration.
- Ex.A-7 Certificate of insurance of goods carrying commercial vehicle.
- Ex.A-8 Goods carrying commercial vehicle.
- Ex.A-9 Citicorp.
On behalf of Opposite party.
- Ex.B-1 is the letter from Swaraj Mazda Limited to Divya Automobiles, dt.18-12-2002.
- Ex.B-2 is the Xerox copy of cheque for Rs.14,700/-, dt.02-01-2003.
- Ex.B-3 is the Xerox copy of vehicle service record issued by Devi Auto Garage, Hyderabad.
- Ex.B-4 is the letter from Opposite party No.1 to complainant, dt.21-12-2002.
- Ex.B-5 is the Job Card issued by Divya Automotives, Mahabubnagar.
- Ex.B-6 is the original receipt issued by State Bank of Hyderabad for Rs.14,700/-.
- Ex.B-7 is the blank form of State Bank of Hyderabad.
- Ex.B-8 is the Job Card.
- Ex.B-9 is the statement.
Sd/-
President.
