By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

Complaint filed against the Opposite Parties to get repaired the vehicle purchased during the warranty period.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of the Bajaj Discover 135 Motor vehicle from the 1^st Opposite Party on 26.06.2009. The purchase of the vehicle was effected in finance Assistance of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the vehicle had the warranty of 2 years for any manufacturing defects. From the very beginning onwards the vehicle ejected excess smoke in running and this complaint also informed this to the1^st Opposite Party. The periodical service of the vehicle was from the branch office of the 1^st Opposite Party at Kalpetta. The Complaints of the vehicle increased day by day even though the proper service was carried out. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party to repair the vehicle and give back the vehicle in running condition because the complaints were in warranty period but the Opposite Party was not ready to repair the vehicle meeting the cost for them.

3. The Complainant is a timber business man who has sustained heavy loss and other hardships because of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In the event of any failure to rectify the complaint of the vehicle, the vehicle is to be replaced with a new one. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs.20,000/- for the loss and hardships along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The purchase of the vehicle model Bajaj Discover 135 with warranty of 2 years is admitted by the Opposite Party. The purchase was on 26.6.2009 and the complaint is also admitted by the Opposite Party. The complaint is filed after extensive use of the vehicle after 5 months that was on 04.11.2001. The warranty period of the vehicle expired on 26.06.2011. There is clear undertaking that if any defects in manufacturing it is coverable under the warranty. The allegation of the Complainant is not supported by cogent evidence and no report of the expert. The Manufacturing defect if any it is to be disclosed by the Expert Commissioner in this case. The Complainant had not brought in to issue any report as such. The allegation of the Complainant is that the defects of the vehicle were not rectified by the Opposite Party is absolutely false. The complaints noted are not born out from any manufacturing defect instead it is resulted by rough and negligent use of the vehicle. The soil and mud entered in to the engine is nothing but misuse of the vehicle that does not cover the warranty. The complaint is based on frivolous allegation and it is to be dismissed with cost.

5. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party, Exts.A1 to A3, C1 and B1 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant, Opposite Party and the Expert Commissioner is also considered.

7. The dispute in issue is in respect of the vehicle alleging manufacturing defect and the vehicle was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party for rectification. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the vehicle produced in the warranty period till 26.06.2011 and the complaints were liable to be rectified by the 1^st Opposite Party as per the terms of warranty. How ever the manual of warranty conditions are not produced in this case. On examination of service Engineer the OPW2 it is disposed that the vehicle was subjected for the periodical services. The vehicle was driven by the Complainant and entrusted in the service center. The Expert Commissioner who is examined as PW2. The report filed by the Expert Commissioner is Ext.C1. The report states that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The odometer reading is not recorded anyway it is around 7000/- km. For a short span of 7000 km if a vehicle shows such complaints it is a manufacturing defects according to the expert. The other allegation of the Opposite Party is mud and soiled water entered in to engine because of reckless and negligent use of the vehicle. It is evidenced by the expert that the vehicle had periodical service. The defect noticed are born out from the manufacturing defect and the vehicle was given for repair to the 1^st Opposite Party within the warranty period. In light of the evidence and documents produced we are in the opinion that the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to repair KL 12/D 7841 motor cycle in free of cost. The Opposite Party did not deny the allegation of the Complainant the vehicle was purchased under finance of the 2^nd Opposite Party of Rs.40,000/-. The Complainant had to meet the interest of the finance and other expenses during this period though the vehicle was not in a usable stage and it is to be compensated.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to repair the vehicle KL 12D 7841 free of cost and to give back it to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 20^th July 2011.

Date of filing: 13.11.2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Varghese. Complainant.

PW2. Vaikundan. A.M.V.I, Regional Transport Office, Kalpetta.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Narayana das. K K.V.R. Motors Administrative Manager, Kozhikode.

OPW2. Praveen Joby. K.V.R. Motors Services Engineer.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2. Acknowledgment.

A3. Receipt. dt:15.09.2009.

C1. Commission Report. dt:20.11.2010.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Power of Attorney.