By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to replace the car supplied to the Complainant or to return Rs.5,95,196/- to the Complainant being the cost of vehicle, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental agoney incured by the Complainant due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and also to pay the cost of the complaint.

2. Complaint in brief:- The complainant purchased a polo car from 2^nd Opposite party which is manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party on 02.07.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,95,196/-. The Complainant purchased the car due to the canvas of filed executives of Opposite parties. When the Complainant plied the car during rainy night, the front glass on putting wiper was seemed to be snowy and unclear. The same complaint was existed even after washing the glass. During raining, when wiper is put, the front glass will be turning in snowy surface with a dark filmy light text will be found and the driving will became impossible. When Complaint to Opposite parties, service person came and taken the vehicle to their service centre at Calicut and found the defect is genuine and returned the vehicle stating that the defects are rectified. But the defect was occured again during raining . Besides getting snowy, when lights of Opposite side vehicle puts there is snowy membrance will appear on the car and the front view will be distracted. When A/C is put, the fron glass truned snowy. The Complainant suffered toomuch and his journeys are abandoned. It is a manufacturing defect and hence prayed from the replace of vehicle or refund of purchase price along with cost and compensation.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and notices were served to Opposite Parties on 02.02.2016. But Opposite Parties not appeared before the Forum and not filed version. Hence Opposite parties were set exparte.

4. On perusing the complaint and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the part of Opposite

Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1 is the sales contract form issued by 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant stating the price of car, Ext.A2 (1 & 2) is the copy of notice issued to the Opposite party, by the Complainant dated 07.12.2015 and its acknowledgment card. Ext.A3(1 to 4) are the letters issued by 1^st Opposite party to the Complainant stating that the Complaint will be attended soon. Ext.A4(1 &2( are the receipts from the payment of purchase price. ExtC1 is the commissioner report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in the forum. In the report, the Advocate Commissioner stated that when checked the front glass of the car after spraying water, the Glass became snowy and it become difficult to drive the car when Opposite side vehicle come with light. The Commissioner stated that the Complaint is found genuine. Thereafter the Complainant filed petition to take out Expert commission and Expert commissioner was appointed. The Expert Commissioner filed report stating that the front wind shield clear at day light but blurred at night and rainy time. The wind shield AC mode cannot clear the wind shield at ride in night.. The Commissioner suggested to replace the wind shield and wiper blade set of the vehicle to rectify the problem. It is pertinent to note that in both the Commissioner Reports, only the defect of front wind shield (front glass) is noted while driving in night in rainy time. No other manufacturing defect is stated by the Commissioner in the vehicle. At the time of inspecting the vehicle by the expert commissioner, the odometer reading of the vehicle was 23324 km. The 1^st prayer of Complainant is that to direct the Opposite parties to replace the car or to return the purchase price. On analysing the entire evidence, the forum found that there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle except the defect in the wind shield ie from glass of the vehicle. The expert commissioner also suggested to replace the front glass of the vehicle only. Hence the Forum cannot allow the 1^st prayer of the complaint. So awarding replacement of front glass of the vehicle at free of cost will be just and reasonable. Even if the Opposite parties are exparte, the Forum cannot allow the complaint as prayed for. More over, the vehicle run for more than 23324 km having no manufacturing defect over any other part including engine, allowing replacement of entire vehicle will not be just and proper. The defect in the front glass of the vehicle is proved and the Opposite parties are failed to rectify the defect so far. 2^nd Opposite party is only the sales centre. It is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite party is directed to replace the front glass of the the vehicle with wiper blade set ie the replace of wind shield and wiper blade set of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL12J 5562 owned by the Complainant at free of cost. The 1^st Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest from the Compensation amount only.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 9^th day of August 2016.

Date of Filing:16.01.2016.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

CW1. Premdas. T.P. Work shop Superintendent, Government Poly Technic,

Meenangadi

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Sales Contract Form.

A2(1) Copy of Letter. dt:07.12.2015.

A2(2) Postal Receipt. dt:07.12.2015.

A2(3) Acknowledgment.

A3(1) Copy of e-mail message

A3(2) Copy of e-mail message.

A3(3) Copy of e-mail message.

A4(1) Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:02.07.2014.

A4(2) Copy of Receipt.

A5. Copy of Receipt. dt:31.07.2014.

C1. Commissioner Report. dt:05.04.2016.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

Nil.