By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to take back his vehicle and to provide new one or to refund the value of the vehicle, cost and compensation due to the supply of defective vehicle.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a four wheeler authorickshaw named TATA MAGIC IRIS from opposite party No.1 on 21.01.2014 bearing Registration No. KL 12 J 3156 which was having one year warranty. But within short time the silencer of the vehicle broke and fall down due to rust and also damaged the door and all the parts of the body became rust. When it is intimated to the opposite party No.1, at the time of first service the opposite party said that it is not rust but is a paste. The said complaint was again and again reported to the opposite party and but no relief is attained. When the vehicle is running, due to the manufacturing defect a grate shock occurring and it could not run properly in an average speed also. Due to these defects the vehicle could not run properly and thereby the complainant suffering much difficulty and financial loss. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite party to take back the vehicle and to provide new vehicle or to refund the value of the vehicle and to direct to pay cost and compensation.
2. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version. Opposite party No.2's notice served on 30.05.2015 but he is not appeared before the Forum hence he is declared ex-parte.
3. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. This opposite party admits the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from this opposite party. But the contention of the complainant that one of the portions of the muffler of the vehicle broke down and also that the door of the vehicle became defective in such a way that it could not be shut are false and incorrect. The further allegation that the door of the vehicle became full of rust is also false and incorrect. The vehicle sold out by the opposite party is devoid of any kind of defects either as manufacturing or otherwise such that the contention of the complainant is intended with ulterior intention only. This opposite party further denies the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle suffers from serious engine wobbling while running the vehicle. This opposite party humbly submits that the vehicle delivered by this opposite party is only a world class one manufactured by the renowned manufacturer M/s. Tata Motors Co. The vehicle did not suffer any kind of defects, either as manufacturing or otherwise. The vehicle of the complainant was brought to the opposite party for repair on 02.07.2014, 02.08.2014 and on 23.08.2014. The muffler of the vehicle was changed under warranty on 23.08.2014 at a mileage of 18622 kilometers and this opposite party changed the same without charging anything from the complainant. Further on 02.07.2014 and on 02.08.2014, the vehicle was undergone only normal running repairs. By 02.07.2014 the vehicle had covered 11072 kilometers and on 02.08.2014 it is 15400 kilometers and on 23.08.2014 it is 18622 kilometers. From the same itself it is evident that the vehicle does not possess any kind, of defects and the complainant is using the vehicle quiet normally. It is humbly submitted that the muffler of the vehicle is damaged only because of the rough usage of the complainant through bad roads. As a gesture of good will, good reputation and good customer policy despite the rough usage of the vehicle this opposite party replaced the muffler with a fresh one under warranty.
4. This opposite party humbly submits that the vehicle sold out by this opposite party is manufactured by Tata Motors Co. only and this opposite party is only a dealer of the vehicle such that if any defects to the vehicle are proved by the complainant, this opposite party is not at all liable for the same. The complainant has not arrayed the manufacturer company as a party to this case and hence this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is equally submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is only with the ulterior motive of gaining unlawfully at the hands of this opposites which could not be allowed at any cost and hence the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice ie bill dated 30.04.2014 for Rs.34,810/- for the repair of the vehicle. Ext.A2 series 1 to 6 is the Tax Invoice dated 02.08.2014 for the second free service. Ext.A3 is the copy of Registration Certificate. Ext.A4 series are the photos of the parts of the vehicle. Ext.X1 is the Commission Report, In Commissioner Report it is stated that “From the examination of all history related the servicing of Vehicle and the trial run, all symptoms proving the complaint is genuine. The corroded fasteners may cause leakage of Brake fluid and the failure of brake system. The Fastners were used was not maintained the quality, means not prominently Coated a None corroded metal. This is a production line defect”. The Commissioner clearly stated that the corroded fastners may cause leakage of Brake fluid and the failure of brake system. The fastners were used was not maintained the quality, it means not prominently coated a none corroded metal. This is s production line defect. As per the report of the commissioner the alleged manufacturing /product line defect is proved beyond doubt. The manufacturer declared ex-parte and not contested the matter. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that the supply of non standard and low quality product is a clear case of unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.2. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 is liable to replace the defective parts and body with quality product and also liable to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the defective parts and body of the said vehicle with quality product and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the defective parts mentioned in the commission report with 12% interest including the cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of September 2015.
Date of Filing: 08.08.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Unnikrishnan. V. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Arun. Service Manager, APCO, Mananthavady.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:30.04.2014.
A2(1). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:02.08.2014.
A2(2). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:02.07.2014.
A2(3). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:26.11.2014.
A2(4). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:28.01.2015.
A2(5). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:03.05.2014.
A2(6). Tax Invoice Bill. Dt:21.05.2014.
A3. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A4(Series). Photos (3 Nos).
X1. Commission Report. Dt:29.12.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Authorization Letter.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
