By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party alleging the manufacturing defect of the vehicle purchased.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased a Yemaha Motor Cycle giving Rs.19,640/- as ready cash and the balance of the amount was paid by the Manapuram General Finance. The cost of the vehicle is Rs.51,000/-. The purchase of the vehicle was mainly relying on reputation of the Opposite Party's firm and it was in an Onam season. The 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the vehicle.

3. Immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle was showing different defects. There were notable scratches in the vehicle and the same was also informed to the 1^st Opposite Party. Time and again the Complainants were shown by the vehicle though it was branded new. When it was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party they answered that the vehicle would be replaced on arrival of new piece. The defects of the vehicle were noted in the job card and they also collected service charge from the Complainant during the warranty period. The 2^nd Opposite Party had not given any heed to the defects informed by the Complainant. The manufacturing defects of the vehicle were not in a repairable condition. The sale of defective vehicle which having manufacturing defect is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

4. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties either to replace the vehicle with a fresh one with warranty and guarantee or the Complainant is to be given back Rs.51,000/- along with interest. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and cost.

5. The 1^st Opposite Party is declared exparte. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer who filed version in brief it is as follows:- The purchase of the vehicle from the 1^st Opposite Party the dealer of the manufacturer is admitted and which was on 11.08.2008. The sale of the vehicle by the manufacturer is only to the authorised dealers. The delivery of the motor cycle was only after the pre-delivery inspection and upon the satisfaction of the Complainant. Motor cycle sold by the 1^st Opposite Party was free from any manufacturing defect. How ever the usage of the vehicle and services thereafter should be complying to the users manual. The allegation of the Complainant that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects is not explanatory and specific. The bald and obscure allegation of the manufacturing defect is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is held in various rule of the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commission that if any manufacturing defect of any part of the vehicle is met with that part itself is to be replaced. In the instant case it is pertinent to note that the Complainant has not verbally mentioned what manufacturing defect the vehicle is having. The request of the Complainant to replace the vehicle with a new one is against reason and justification.

6. Apart from those aspects it is to be considered that services of the vehicle was done by the Complainant from the unauthorised servicing centers. It is also against the instruction of the users manual. In case of any use of the vehicle beyond the instructions of the users manual the manufacturer is absolved from the liability of any defect. The Complainant availed service for the vehicle even after filing this complaint and even in that service the Complainant has not mentioned of any manufacturing defect. The complaint filed is against reasons and justification it is mainly motivated with monitory interest. The 2^nd Opposite Party is even ready at this time to resolve the problems if desired by the Complainant. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

7. The 3^rd Opposite Party who is supplemented filed version in short it is as follows:- The 3^rd Opposite Party has no transaction with the Complainant and the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is no way connected to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the 3^rd Opposite Party.

8. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties in the sale of the motor cycle to the Complainant?

2. Relief and cost.

9. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the documents Exts.A1 to A8 and C1. The oral testimony of the Complainant's agent and a witness of the 3^rd Opposite Party as OPW1 are also considered. The Motor Vehicle Inspector is the Commissioner who inspected the vehicle and filed report which is marked as Ext.C1. The dispute in issue is in respect of the manufacturing defect of the motor cycle manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party and delivered by the 1^st Opposite Party, the dealer. Ext.A1 is the users manual. The purchase of the vehicle is undisputed and the vehicle had undergone 3 services which is recorded in the users manual. On verification of the other documents it is seen that the Complainant spent some amount for the purchase oil. The adjustment of chain and the some other works were not done from the authorised dealer of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The dispute in issue is actually on the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The husband of the complainant is examined as PW1 how ever he is not authorised to give evidence for the Complainant. The agent of the Complainant evidenced that the body of the vehicle was replaced and the expenses were met by the Complainant but no document is produced by the Complainant to establish his contention. It is also admitted by the PW1 that even in the warranty period services were done from other work shop which were not authorised by the manufacturer. Ext.C1 shows that the odometer reading is 21576 at the time of inspection. The state of the vehicle noticed by the Expert Commissioner in the document is (1) Front wiser and rear body palace scratched (2) Mileage tested and read 85 km per liter. The report shows that the vehicle was driven and tested and found that no mechanical (manufacturing defect) defects are noticed. According to the Expert Commissioner the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects it is evidenced by the Expert Commissioner that if chain skip off from the socket it cannot be considered as a manufacturing defects.

10. The oral testimony of the Expert Commissioner it is also evidenced that the Motor Cycle was driven and tested and found to be having 85 km mileage. More over the vehicle was in running conditions at the time of inspection. The Complainant filed objection to the Commission Report. The Complainant has not produced any document or any evidence is brought out to establish his contention that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The oil of the motor cycle was changed once as per the statement of the witness of the 3^rd Opposite Party. The complainant could not bring forth to establish his contention that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. The services required to the vehicle was not done by the complainant timely. The service of the Opposite Parties cannot be found to be defective and no unfair trade practice in the dealing.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st May 2011.

Date of filing:29.04.2009. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Shihab. Complainant.

CW1. C.V.M. Sheriff. M.V.I.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Harikumar. Shever line Kasaragode.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Owner's Manual

A2. Receipt. dt:11.08.2008.

A3. Copy of Certificate of Registration. dt:29.08.2008.

A4. Cash Bill. dt:05.10.2008.

A5. Bill. dt:04.04.2009.

A6. Bill. dt:17.02.2009.

A7 series Bill.

A8. Authorisation dt:24.03.2010.

C1. Commission Report. dt:28.02.2010.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.