O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

On 04-05-2010, the complainant purchased an 'ape city diesel' autorickshaw from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. He purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of the 3^rd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party agreed to deliver the autorickshaw with all the additional fillings fitted in the demonstration vehicle. But the 2^nd opposite party failed to deliver rubber mat, mud flap and proper tool kit of the vehicle. On 01-06-2010, he brought the vehicle for the 1^st service, but the 2^nd opposite party did not attend to the complaints pointed out by the complainant. Due to the above in action on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant could not ply the vehicle and thus he was unable to remit the instalments of the loan. Later, on 10-06-2010, the complainant approached another work shop and got the complaints rectified. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties highlighting his grievances and demanding compensation. But there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us with the following reliefs :

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,000/- with interest being the expenses incurred by the complainant to rectify the defects of the vehicle.

2. To direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest.

3. To direct the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest to the complainant for the loss of income.

4. Costs of the proceedings.

2. Version of the 1^st opposite party :

The complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no specific allegation against the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to any acts of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant had not approached the 1^st opposite party at any point of time before or after the purchase of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party provides warranty only subject to terms and conditions. The rubber mats and flaps were not delivered due to shortage of stock. The 1^st opposite party offered the same at the time of 1^st service, but the complainant refused to accept the same for reason of his own. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for.

3. Defense of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties :

The complainant availed himself of a loan of Rs. 1,04,500/- from the 3^rd opposite party to purchase the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party. At the time of delivery the 2^nd opposite party delivered all the standard accessories of the vehicle. On 01-06-2010, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the service of the vehicle. The 2^nd opposite party redelivered the vehicle to the complainant to his full satisfaction. The contra averments are only to evade the monthly payments in the loan account. No payment has been made by the complainant in the loan account. The warranty of the vehicle became null and void, since the complainant got repaired the vehicle by repairers other than authorised service centres of the 1^st opposite party. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A11were marked on his side. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Witness for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties was examined as DW2. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite parties being the expenses incurred by him to rectify the defects of the vehicle?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest towards the loss of income of the complainant?

4. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

6. Point No. i. :- Though the 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer, nothing is before us to substantiate the above contentions. The case of the complainant is that he is a driver and he has purchased the vehicle for his livelihood. The production of Ext. A9 licence evidences the same. So, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer and this complaint is maintainable in this Forum.

7. Point No. ii. :- Admittedly on 01-06-2010, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the 1^st service of the vehicle. But the service of the vehicle was not at all satisfactory. Thereafter, the complainant addressed the opposite parties regarding the same to which there was no response. So he had to approach another workshop for the repair of the vehicle and he incurred Rs. 390/- for the same evidenced by Ext. A6 estimate. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties ought to have taken steps to redress the grievances of the complainant, which he had highlighted in Ext. A10. The in action pursuant to Ext. A10 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, he managed to rectify the defects of the vehicle through another workshop and incurred the amounts as per Exts. A6 and A7 (Rs. 390 and Rs. 765 respectively). Ext. A8 is only an estimate issued by an unidentified person. The complainant has not taken any steps to prove the genuineness of Ext. A8, so we reject the same. In short, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay the amounts as per Exts. A6 and A7 to the complainant. During the proceedings, the 1^st opposite party expressed their willingness to provide the mud flap and floor mat to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get the tool kit of the vehicle.

8. Point No. iii. :- The complainant does not have a case that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. There is nothing before us to substantiate the full claim of the complainant especially when at first he complained of the non-attendance of the vehicle and the subsequent repairs of his own wherewith he could ply the vehicle. Nothing contrary comes above. Claim of compensation is rejected here.

9. Point No. iv. :- Even according to the complainant, the warranty expired since he has repaired the vehicle through an unauthorised agent. If the 2^nd opposite party had denied the service of the vehicle, he could have very well approached any other service centre of the 1^st opposite party, in which he failed. In these circumstances, we feel that no compensation is called for. Since matters have been materialised. However, unnecessarily a consumer has been put to difficulties which calls for a costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Awarded.

10. In view of the above, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,155/- to the complainant being the expenses incurred by the complainant to repair the vehicle.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall deliver the mud flap, floor mat and tool kit of the vehicle in question. The complainant is directed to return the defective tool kit to the opposite parties simultaneously.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- together to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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