BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.305/11
Dated this the 4th day of August 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 10-08-2011. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased new LMV Goods Carriage, Tata Model-407 Pick Up WB 2750 MM bearing registration No. KL11-AG 6477 with the financial assistance of the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. The vehicle owned and possessed by the complainant when starts would show some mechanical defects at initial stage of the purchase itself. It had become to the notice of the complainant that while applying the brake the vehicle gets stopped with much shattering and gets over turned to the opposite direction. Immediately on noticing the said defects of the vehicle, the complainant had rushed to the second opposite party and it appraised the above facts and defective nature of the vehicle and requested to rectify the defect. The person attached to the opposite party had thoroughly checked the vehicle and drove the vehicle had informed the complainant that they have noticed the defect of the vehicle while applying the brake and said that the vehicle being a new model arrived and manufactured by the opposite party as they had made structural as well as mechanical changes with respect to the old one to the new one. It is respectfully submitted by the complainant that even after second opposite party had some how managed to repair the brand new vehicle and has advised the complainant that the defects will not last as the vehicle runs more and this brand of vehicle will perform like this in the initial stage of kilometers. The vehicle used to run in the night for carrying Mathrubhoomi News Paper upon rental base and due to the prolonged breakdown and trouble of the vehicle, the complainant had lost several works. This facts were properly intimated to the opposite party but so far not turned up or rectified these defects. This is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- along with compensation.
Opposite party-1 after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the customers of all commercial vehicle manufactured by the opposite party are provided service through large net work of authorized dealers and Tata Authorised Service Stations. The net work of such workshops/service points is being continuously enhanced and widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services as closer to the customer’s doorsteps. The complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defects or any deficiency in service being established against this opposite party. There is no defect in the vehicle of the complainant as alleged. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party.
Opposite parties-2, 3, and 4 filed their version stating that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 30-11-2010. Whereas the allegation in Para-3 of the complaint that the said vehicle of the complainant had shown some mechanical defects at the initial stage of the purchase itself etc. are not true and correct. It is submitted that the complainant reported to the workshop with regard to the gear stuck complaint only on 10-3-11 that is three months and ten days after the date of the sale of the vehicle and by the period the said vehicle had covered 16163 kilometers which means the vehicle had covered an average of more than 150 KM per day. It is further submitted that the faulty components of the vehicle were replaced under warranty. It is further submitted that there had been no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party at any point of time. Under these circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? (2) If so what is the relief and costs.
Complainant was continuously absent for the last several postings. Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. Here complainant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove their case. Since the complainant has not turned and adduced any evidence, Fora cannot go with the complaint alone to take a decision on merit. No steps were taken by the complainant to substantiate their case. The complainant deliberately failed to appear before this Fora to adduce any evidence. Under these circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of August 2012.
Date of filing : 10-08-2011
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
// True copy //
(Forwarded/By order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
