By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainant for the delivery of Stage Carriage which found to be defective in manufacture.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Bus chassis Model No. LPT 1112 manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party which was sold and serviced by Sakthi Auto Mobile, Meenchanda, Calicut, Kerala and Sakthi Auto Mobile, Kakkavayal, Wayanad the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties respectively. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant was used as a stage carriage plying passenger service between Panamaram and Sulthan Bathery. The performance of the vehicle was so disheartening, the manufacturing defect of the engine and other parts of the vehicle projected from the very beginning onwards. The passenger services were interrupted in many occasions the stage carriage remained off the road on many days. The purchase of the vehicle was under the influence of lucrative offers and promises by the company representatives and executives. In experience the Complainant came to know that the model BS3 vehicle manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party is mainly used for plying it in metropolitan cities and town where the road conditions are more feasible to such type of vehicle. The representatives and executives who contacted the Complainant did not disclose this fact to the Complainant. In course of time the Complainant realised that as a passenger vehicle the particular model was not suitable to ply it in hilly area where the Complainant operated the bus service.

3. The purchase of the vehicle was under help of finance company and the Complainant was unable to remit the instalments due to recurrent defects and brake down of the vehicle. The Complainant sent lawyer notices to the Opposite Party carving for the circumstances to replace the vehicle with an another vehicle which is free from manufacturing defects but the request of the Complainant was not considered. The purchase of the vehicle was in the year 2006 July. The repairs and replacements of parts from July 2006 to March 2009 are elaborately detailed by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.

4. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party :-

1. To compensate the Complainant with Rs.3,00,000/- towards the mental pain and agony.

2. As an alternative claim the Complainant is to be given Rs.14,00,000/- to replace the defective vehicle along with cost and compensation.

5. The Opposite Parties filed version the sum up of the version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are as follows:- Primarily the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable since the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is used for commercial purpose. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant is a turbo engine the defects alleged by the Complainant are not in a position to see in such a model. The Complainant's bus whenever found to be having defects or needed repair it was timely done. The vehicle was taken to the 4^th Opposite Party for servicing at the run of 4500 km and 100000 km and low mileage was reported only at the time this complaint was also rectified.

6. As a manufacturer of the vehicle this Opposite Parties are required to meet only the warranty conditions replacing the parts. The improper usage of the vehicle and normal wear and tear are not included in the warranty stipulations. When the vehicle was reported to be having any complaint and if the vehicle was brought in to the Opposite Parties service centre it was either replaced or rectified. The replacement of the parts by materials of any other manufacturer excludes this Opposite Parties from fulfilling the warranty conditions. The reported complaints were rectified to the full satisfaction of the Complainant and several parts of the vehicle were replaced. In the warranty period the vehicle was brought for the periodical service only and at the time of periodical services, the Complainant bought the vehicle to the service centers. The Complainant has not specifically stated what is actually the complaint of the vehicle. The allegations of the Complainant is not based on bonafied reasons and it is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party.

7. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party filed version in brief is as follows :- The vehicle purchased by the Complainant belongs to the category of turbo engine there was no offer from the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties regarding the mileage and other performance as claimed by the Complainant. In fact the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is having reasonable mileage and no serious allegation was raised by the Complainant till the completion of 100000 km. The vehicle when brought for periodical services the Complainant reported some minor repairs which all are common to all vehicle. The excess fuel consumption was rectified on report of the Complainant. This Opposite Parties made the entry in the job card of all repairs and rectifications how ever the vehicle was not brought to this Opposite Party alleging repeated complaint as a vehicle which was used as a stage carriage. The wear and tear of the vehicles which reported to this Opposite Party of the repairs are done to the satisfaction of the Complainant that all were recorded in the job sheet. The purchase of the vehicle was unaffected by any influence it was solely based on the preference of the Complainant. There is no unfair trade practise or any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The reported Complainant's of the vehicle were rectified free of cost to the full satisfaction of the Complainant. The break down of the vehicle was reported to this Opposite Party when the warranty period lapsed and on inspection it was noticed that it was resulted by improper handling of the vehicle. This Opposite Parties are in the opinion that the vehicle was effective in operation and no serious allegation or any complaint was reported till the completion of 100000 km. The complaint is devoid of any merit and it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

8. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party also filed additional version in which they pleaded that the vehicle was reported for inspection and the repairs done at that time was normally attached to the vehicle caused by wear and tear. During the warranty period the rectification and replacement of the parts were done in time, no unfair trade practices involved in the transaction.

9. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

10. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Parties, Ext.A1 to A7, C1, C2 are the document. The oral testimony of the Complainant as PW1. Expert Commissioner as CW1, the witness of the Opposite Parties are also examined those are OPW1 and OPW2.

11. The vehicle was purchased in July 2006 and plied as a stage carrier. The vehicle made by 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties consists of a model LPT 1112 how ever the price of the chassis is not averred in the complaint. The materials on record shows that the type of vehicle which the Complainant purchased met with complains one or other and it persist till the end when the vehicle turned to be not in a position to run. The notices were sent to the Opposite Parties when the vehicle ran for 100000 km and the engine blocked. The turbo failure caused in 3 times in 14 months that lead to the replacement of the crown and pinion. Except gear box other major repairs or replacement were done by the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties, the authorised dealer of the manufacture. The Complainant demanded rectification of engine trouble and the ancillary complaints. Time and again an unusual sound emanated from engine which was also reported to the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties. The vehicle was kept in an idle position not in a condition to run the vehicle. Ext.C1 and C2 are the commission report of the expert and the Commissioner is examined as CW1. On preliminary inspection the commission reported the cylinder block, damage of piston and connecting rode, a piece of metal is seen broken in the engine. The piston was also broken. The starting motor was damaged. The final report that is Ext.C2 after dismantling and inspecting the vehicle. The report shows that the engine cylinder and piston are broken water in small quantity is found in the crank mixed with oil. The starting motor was also damaged. The report evinces that if the vehicle is to be turned to a running condition the engine is to be replaced. From the very beginning onwards the vehicle of the Complainant was off the road for one or other reasons as alleged. In the Commission Report it is seen that the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties either replaced or repaired parts of engine or different components. The customer support manager of the 1^st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 he admitted that the vehicle was inspected by him the report of the Expert Commissioner also shows that the engine pump, censer turbo and ECU are replaced due to the breakage of engine block. The Complainant was given an extented warranty and the vehicle also had the extended warranty coverage of 2 years in addition to the normal warranty of 1 ½ years or 150000 kms run which ever comes earlier. The OPW1 admitted that the vehicle was idle for 10 months in two occasions. The Engine assembly was replaced by the manufacturer which is a rare service in usual practice and it was due to the raising of engine more than the specified R.T.M. The replacement was done out of the warranty period it is also admitted by this witness that the crown and pinion was changed by the authorised service centre to improve the pulling. From the oral testimony of the witness it is also seen that the entire works either replacement or repair were done from the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties and some of works were directly supervised by the technician of the company itself. Due to the malfunctioning of pump the engine block is broken and replaced. The supervisor of the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties is examined as OPW2 who had experienced the repair work of the Complainant's vehicle. It cannot be seen from the testimony of the witnesses that the defect incumbent upon the vehicle is not due to any manufacturing defect. How ever the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition. The manufacturer applied alternative methods to improve the efficiency of the vehicle and to make it free from defects and the assembly was also changed. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant was off the road and it was not in a road worthy condition for one or other reason. In C.N. Anantharam VS Fiat India Ltd and other (2011 CTJ Page 124) the Hon'ble apex Court held in detail the circumstances which necessitate the manufacture to compensate the consumer with the value of the vehicle when the vehicle is having inherent manufacturer defect. The facts of this case is almost similar to the instant case. The complaint is filed when the source of expense were exhausted it is evidently proved that the model of vehicle sold to the Complainant was not disposed in large scale when compared to the other model there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the point is found accordingly.

12. Point No.2:- The Complainant has not produced any documents to show the purchase value of the vehicle, Ext.A7 consists of the policy schedules of 2006 to 2008. The photo copy of the policy schedule 2007 -2008 states the indemnified value of the vehicle that is 7,04,200/-. The major works of the vehicle was done either in the warranty period or in the period when the vehicle is having extended warranty coverage. The vehicle turned to be no use for the Complainant it is also admitted that the particular model of vehicle is stopped by the company. The replacement of engine or vehicle is impracticable. In such a circumstances the complainant had to be compensated for incidental expenditure and damages. The purchase of the vehicle was under financial assistants from the oral testimony of the witness. The Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant the indemnified value of the vehicle Rs.7,04,200/- along with cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to give the Complainant Rs.7,04,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Four thousand and Two hundred only) the indemnified value of the vehicle along with Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards cost and compensation. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to comply this within one month from the date of receipt of this order. On payment of the ordered sum the Opposite Parties are entitled to take back the vehicle of the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled for an interest for the ordered sum at the rate of 9% from the date of this order till the realisation of amount.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th March 2011.

Date of filing:18.02.2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. K.G. Ramaswamy. Complainant.

CW1. Laiju Lukose. Vocational Teacher, GVHS (THS) Bathery.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. B. Nedumaran. Customer Support Manager, Tata Motors, Mumbai.

OPW2. Abhilash. Supervisor, Sakthi Automobiles, Kasargode.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:21.02.2008.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:29.12.2008.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:01.04.2009.

A4 series. E-mail Messages

A5 series Register.

A6. Copy of Operator's Service Book.

A7. Copy of Policy Schedule.

C1. Interim Report of the Inspection of vehicle.

C2. Final Report of the Inspection of Vehicle.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.