DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 21st day of November 2008.<br /> <br /> Present : Smt. H. Seena, President<br /> : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)<br /> : Smt.A.K. Bhanumathi (Member) <br /> C.C.No.100/2006<br /> <br /> M.P. Chandran<br /> Mekkonath House<br /> Kumaranellur (P.O)<br /> Kapoor Village<br /> Palakkad – 679 552. - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. The Manager<br /> Palghat Automobiles Ltd<br /> Kunnathurmedu <br /> Palakkad – 678 013<br /> <br /> 2. The Area Manager<br /> Bajaj Auto Ltd.,<br /> 229/A-23, IInd Floor<br /> Vasudeva Complex<br /> Opp. HDFC Bank<br /> Civil Lane<br /> Palarivattom, Ernakulam <br /> Kochi – 682 025.<br /> <br /> 3. The Deputy General Manager (Service)<br /> Service Department<br /> Bajaj Auto Ltd<br /> Akurdi, Pune<br /> Maharashtra – 411 035. - Opposite paries <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member<br /> The brief facts of the complaint is as follows.<br /> The complainant purchased a SAFFIRE Scooter bearing chassis No. CFV BGH 06825 KGST and Engine No. CFG BGH 07040 AST of Bajaj Company from Seema Automobiles, Pattambi, who was an authorized service dealer/agent of M/s. Palghat Automobiles, the District Distributor of Bajaj two wheelers on 27th March 2001. The Scooter was registered KL-9-J-983, and all the servicing was done at Seema Automobiles, Pattambi as per owner's <br /> - 2 -<br /> manual. As Seema Automobiles at Pattambi closed their agency, the complainant had shifted the servicing of the scooter to Lakshmi Automobiles, Pattambi and Super Automobiles, Koottanad. At the end of the year 2001, the scooter developed problems and for rectifying the complaints the complainant took the scooter to the service centre of M/s Palghat Automobiles at Marutha Road, Palakkad during 2001-2002. The scooter consequently was giving troubles and often brake down on the way. After that the complainant faced a lot of problems to keep the scooter in a safe place to rush to bus stop for office. As many a time the complainant missed the train and forced to avail leave from office and missed many important assignments which were the part of duty which resulted in monetary loss and mental agony.<br /> <br /> The complainant paid an amount of Rs.9,432.56 (Nine thousand four hundred and thirty two rupees and fifty six paise) over a period from 09/07/2003 to 27/05/2005 for repair charges. He alleges that the scooter covered only 19107.3 km to incur such huge amount as repairs. Vehicle used to develop new defects on running for a short time after the scooter was repaired for one defect.<br /> <br /> On 24/11/2005 he wrote a registered letter about engine complaints to the Manager, Palghat Automobiles, with copies under certificate of posting to Dy. General Manager Service, Pune and Area Manager, Cochin. But there was no response from anyone. On 21/04/2006 the complainant again gave a registered notice to the above parties. But the Opposite party M/s. Palghat Automobiles send a reply only after filing the complaint before the forum. Also the spare parts of this scooter are not readily available in Kerala state. He had suffered lot of mental agony due to the above act. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.32,314/- with 10% interest till date of realization and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony together with the cost of the complaint.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite parties for their appearance. Opposite parties filed versions, stating the following contentions.<br /> <br /> The complaint relates to the alleged unsatisfactory functioning of a Saffire scooter which <br /> - 3 -<br /> was purchased by the complainant on 27/03/2001. The complainant had not made any serious complaint regarding the vehicle purchased on 27/03/2001 during the initial years which is quite evident from the complaint itself. Also the complainant had availed all the free service facilities and did not bring out any adverse remarks regarding the working of the scooter for the first two years. Now after a lapse of 6 years he is demanding the company to take back the old vehicle and give him a new vehicle or cash and also compensation. According to the version the claim of the complainant is barred by the law of limitation of two years provided under the Consumer Protection Act. The spare parts for the Saffire model of Scooter is very much available with Bajaj company and the company has also assured and offered all the possible help to the complainant. The free warranty period of one year for the scooter has expired in 2002 itself. The limitation of two years period to file the complaint has also lapsed in the year 2003. The complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.<br /> <br /> On 09/11/2006, the complainant filed special power of attorney. After that the authorized representative of the complainant filed an application for appointing an expert commissioner. Application allowed and Commissioner filed two commission reports. The commissioner had submitted the original report on 26/06/2007, duly examining the scooter on 20/06/2007 in the premises of the complainant's residence in the presence of the parties. <br /> <br /> The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exhibits (A1 to A12 series) was marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit to support their contentions. Commission reports marked as exhibits C1 and C2. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.<br /> The issue for consideration are :<br /> <br /> 1.whether the complaint is barred by limitations?<br /> 2.Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?<br /> 3. Whether there is any defect in the goods supplied and whether there is deficiency of<br /> service on the part of the Opposite parties?<br /> 4. If so, what is the relief and cost?<br /> - 4 -<br /> Issue No. 1<br /> Admittedly the Complainant has purchased the Scooter on 27th March, 2001. As per the complaint itself it is stated that the scooter showed snags before the expiry of free service period . It can be seen from Ext A6 that the warranty period is for 12 months from the date of purchase. Evidence adduced by way of Ext A7 series shows that the scooter has undergone repairs through the authorized workshops during the year 2003 to 2005. A written complaint was issued to the Ist Opposite party on 24/11/2005 (Ext A8). Again on 21/04/2006 a letter was issued to all Opposite parties stating the grievence (Ext A9). Reply was issued stating their inability to replace a new vehicle or return the price on 02/05/2006. Complaint filed on 03/07/2006 is not barred by limitation. Thus the point is answered in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> Issue No.2<br /> The complainant has stated in his proof affidavit and also evident from Ext A2, that he has purchased the scooter from Seema Automobiles, Pattambi, who is the sub dealer of Ist Opposite party. Subsequently Seema Automobiles has closed down and so was not made a party. The Ist Opposite party has no contention in the affidavit that the Seema Automobiles is not their sub dealer. Hence we hold the view that complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party.<br /> <br /> Issue 3 and 4<br /> We have perused the proof affidavits and relevant documents on record. It is evident from A7 series that the complainant had spend an amount of Rs.9,432.56 towards the price of spare parts and repair charges during the year 2003 to 2005. Further in the Ist commission report marked as Ext C1, commissioner has noted defects electrical and mechanical complaints in the scooter.<br /> <br /> Commissioner also stated that with these complaints it is difficult to identify manufacturing defect. But in Ext C2, the detailed commission report, it is stated that there is manufacturing defect. Had there been any manufacturing defect, it will be evident in the initial years. No evidence has been adduced by the complainant to substantiate this. The <br /> - 5 -<br /> vehicle had been in use for more than 5 years. It is difficult to believe that it is suffering from manufacturing defects. However the Commissioner has noted defects in the scooter 'Defect' as defined in Sec 2(f) of CP Act means any fault, imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. The complainant is entitled for relief if the goods supplied to him is defective. From the evidence on record, it is clear that there is defect in the scooter supplied to the complainant. However we are not convinced that there were manufacturing defects warranting replacement of the scooter or refund of the whole purchase amount. Even after notice, the opposite parties failed to keep the scooter road worthy. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> We direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of November 2008.<br /> President (SD)<br /> Member (SD)<br /> Member (SD) <br /> Exhibits marked on the side Complainant<br /> A1 - Photocopy of the sanction of scooter advance order No.29/03/2001 pers 12-1893 dated 06/02/01 from Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.<br /> A2 - Invoice No, 434 dated 27/03/2001 of Seema Automobiles, Pattambi.<br /> A3 - Receipt No.127 dated 26/03/2001 of Seema Automobiles<br /> A4 series - Attested copy of form of certificate of Registration No.84969<br /> A5 - Certificate cum Policy schedule of the Oriental Insurance company for the period from 27/03/2001 to 26/03/2002.<br /> A6 - Owners manual and service coupons.<br /> A7 series – Cash bill nos from 09/07/2003 to 27/05/2005.<br /> - 6 -<br /> A8 – Letter dated 24/11/2005 addressed to Manager, Palghat Automobiles.<br /> A9 – Notice given by Complainant to Opposite parties dated 21/04/2006.<br /> A10 – Reply dated 02/05/2006 from Manager to Complainant<br /> A11 – Notice to Opposite parties dated 07/06/2006 (copy)<br /> A12 – Reply dated 28/06/2006 from Manager to complainant<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party<br /> Nil<br /> Forums exhibits<br /> C1 & C2 – Commission report<br /> Cost (Allowed)<br /> Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost.<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br />