KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.467/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 25/07/2013

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.366/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kollam dated, 13/06/2013)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                             :         MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Ramkumar.G., S/o. Gopinathan,

            Chenavila Veedu, Near Old LPS

            Agasthyacode, Anchal P.O.,

            Kollam.

(By Adv:    S/S. Thomas A John & G.R. Anjith)                   

                    Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.       The Chief Executive Hero Motor Corpo. Ltd.,

Head Office-34, Community Centre,

Bazant Lock Vasanth Vihar, New Delhi-110 057.

            2.   The Manager, Hero Motor Corporation Ltd.,

      3. E2, 3rd Floor, Saniya Plaza Mahakavi

      Bharathiyar Road, Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

      Kochin, Pin-682 035, Ernakulam.

2.       The Proprietor, Vilayil Auto Mobiles,

Anchal P.O., Anchal, Kollam District, Pin-691 306.

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the complainant on dismissal of the complaint on the question of maintainability. 

2.  When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission the Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Forum below has not gone to the merits of the case.  The Forum also denied the opportunity to adduce evidence including expert evidence.  The defect in the vehicle arose during the warranty period.  It is the case of the complainant that he purchased motor bike of ‘Hero Honda Splendor plus’ from the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorised dealer of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The vehicle was using in accordance with the manual provided by the opposite parties.  Since the date of purchase, on 19/07/2006, the servicing was carried out by the 3^rd opposite party on prescribed intervals. The allegation of the complainant is that the oil change and service were not properly done and the last service was done on 04/04/2012 and the next service is due in 36756 kms.  Due to the defect in the engine the vehicle was taken to the 3^rd opposite party and it was informed that the engine crank was damaged and the engine had to be repaired immediately.  No defect was pointed out on previous occasions and the engine repair can arise only due to manufacturing defect.  It is the definite case of the complainant that the dispute regarding the engine complaint occurred after 04/04/2012 and the complaint is filed on 22/12/2012 and is very well within the period of limitation.  The engine defect cannot occur all on a sudden and it caused due to the deficiency in service by not changing the engine oil or using sub standard material during service or otherwise is a manufacturing defect.  The complaint is filed for curing the manufacturing defect.  On hearing the maintainability petition the Forum Below dismissed the complaint.

          2.  On hearing the counsel for the appellant it is clear that the vehicle was purchased on 19/07/2006.  The vehicle was already covered 30,000 kms.  The defect in the engine crank was pointed out by the supervisor of the 3^rd  opposite party on 04/02/2012 and it is alleged by the complainant that the engine defect cannot occur in a short span of time and alleges manufacturing defect.  The complainant was availing the service of the 3^rd opposite party and the oil changing and service were done regularly in accordance with the guidelines.  The complaint is filed on 22/12/2012.  No defect was pointed out by the 3^rd opposite party until 04/04/2012.  While alleging manufacturing defect it should be at the earliest point of time.  Further the vehicle purchased in the year 2006 and under 24(A) complaint is barred by limitation.

          3.  The vehicle has covered more than 30,000 kms and until 04/04/2012 no engine defect was brought out to the notice by the complainant.  He has no case that the dealer has not attended his vehicle during the period of warranty.  After the warranty period the liability of the manufacturer and the dealer is very limited and it is subject to the terms and conditions.  The vehicle purchased in 2006 and the allegation of manufacturing defect raised in 2012, after covering around 30,000 kms.  We find that the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below.

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

Sa.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                   APPEAL No.467/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 25/07/2013

                                                              sa