BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad B.A.LL.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 30th day of April, 2008
C.C.No. 164/07
Between
K. Subba Reddy, S/o.Bala Nagi Reddy,
R/o. 1-230, Near Power House, Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
The Manager, M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Pvt.,Ltd.,
Santosh Nagar Colony, Kurnool.
… Opposite Party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A. Jagadish Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri. A. Rama Subba Reddy and Sri. A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocates, for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.164-07
1. This case of the Complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party for replacement of the lift pump along with gear box and compensation of Rs.70,000/- with future interest thereon till payment and cost of the proceeding and other relief’s which he is entitled in the case, alleging the sale of a vehicle on 12-1-2006 by the opposite party, which developed a complaint in the working of lift pump and gear box and the opposite party not rectifying the said defect in spite of complaint and a legal notice and thereby alleging deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance to the receipt of the notice of this complaint the opposite party made its appearance and contested the case filling a written version denying any cause of action to the complainant and thereby any deficiency on its part and any liability to the complainant’s claim and the alleged defect was not any manufacturing defect but a contingency that has arisen on account of improper maintenance of the lift pumps bolts which ensured cracks to the body of lift pump which is not covered under warranty.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant has filed along with complaint 6 documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of registration certificate of vehicle, (2) maintenance and warranty, (3) legal notice dated 13-3-07,(4) postal receipt dated 13-3-07,(5) acknowledgement dated 16-3-07, and (6) reply notice dated 7-5-07, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for their appreciation and the opposite party did not place any documents.
4. Except filing the supra mentioned documents along with complaint, in spite of thirteen adjournments after filing written version, the complainant did not file its sworn affidavit either in proof of its complaint averments and the documents filed or contradicting the averments of written version of the opposite party and ultimately abstaining the proceedings evinced no interest in prosecuting matter.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out its case as alleged against the opposite party and thereby any liability of the opposite party for the claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of registration which merely envisages the purchase of Ashok Leyland Tipper bearing Registration No. AP 21 W 4777 by the complainant and its registration with RTA Nandyal. The fact of the said purchase being not denied by the opposite party the Ex.A1 is not requiring any further appreciation than what it stands for and envisages.
7. The Ex.A2 maintenance and warranty service folder issued by opposite party contains two free service card dated 13-3-2006 and 8-4-2006 and record of maintenance to be observed at 32,000/-, 48,000/-, 64,000/-, 80,000/-, 96,000/-, 112,000/-, 128,000/-, 144,000/-, and 160,000/- kms and also warranty applicable to Comet/ Viking/Cheetah/Tusker / Taurus/ Cargo Range vehicles. Apart from the particulars as to exhaust emission, customer data base, data base on commercial vehicle operators and recommended lubricants, in the last page it envisages that it pertains to model No. 2516/2, chassis No. LDH 099858 and Engine No. LDE 417746 and its sale date as 12-1-2006. As the said particulars are tallying to the particulars mentioned in Ex.A1 registration certificate, the Ex.A2 remains to be of one pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle. As per the Ex.A1 the nature of the vehicle covered there under is a Taurus Tipper. The conditions of warranty in Ex.A2 provides a warranty, to Taurus Tipper vehicles, for a period of 18 months from the date of sale or 3,000/- hours of operation which ever is earlier and the obligation under said warranty is limited either to repairing or replacing free of charge such parts of the vehicle as are deemed to be defective in the opinion of Ashok Leyland and shall not extend to the consequential losses and for the parts that are not manufactured by Ashok Leyland the warranty terms of the respective supplier will be applicable. It also says the Ashok Leyland warranty shall become null and avoid even if the vehicle was repaired by persons not belonging to Ashok Leyland Authorized workshop. As per the legal notice dated 13-3-07 (Ex.A3) the complaint to the vehicle was the malfunction of lift pump along with gear box and the said lift pump was manufactured by Usha Company and so the warranty in Ex.A2 does not cover the said contingency. The Ex.A6 clarifies further that the lift pump was manufactured by M/s. Usha Telehoist Company and the warranty of said manufacturer covers 2,400 working hours and by the date of complaint the said vehicle has run of 2,662 hours and the said contingency to lift pump occurred on account of improper maintenance of lift pump bolts and not on account of any of its manufacturing and the said improper maintenance has led to cracks to the body of the lift pump for which there will be any liability either to the opposite party or to the manufacture of the lift pump and the lift pump was got welded outside the premises of opposite party workshop and it was found satisfactory. The said contentions appearing in the Ex.A6 read with the warranty conditions of Ex.A2 were not met by the Complainant to hold them as invalid. Further the consequent conduct of the complainant subsequent to the written version in not endeavoring to come across them by filing a sworn affidavit and in not effectively prosecuting the case envisages any amount of doubt in the bonafides of the alleged defect to the vehicle and any of its liability on the opposite party.
8. The Ex.A4 and A5 being merely postal receipts as to posting of Ex.A3 and its acknowledgement by opposite party who replied the said notice vide Ex.A6, they are not required any further appreciation than what they stand for.
9. In the result of the above discussion as the complainant utterly failed in establishing the liability of the opposite party in the alleged defect to his vehicle the complainant is not remaining not entitled to any of the claims at the liability of the opposite party. Consequently the case of the complainant being devoid of merit and force, the case is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of April, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle
Ex.A2. Maintenance & warranty .
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 13-03-2007.
Ex.A4. Postal receipt dated 13-03-2007.
Ex.A5. Acknowledge card dated 16-03-2007.
Ex.A6. Reply notice dated 07-05-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.A. Jagadish Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool., for complainant
2. Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, and Sri. A. Prabhakar Reddy,
Advocates, Kurnool, for the opposite party.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
