DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th  day of October 2014

Present   : Smt.Seena H, President

             : Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member

             : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                              Date of filing :20/07/2011

                                                      (C.C.No.106/2011)                       

Muhammad Noufal,

S/o.Muhammad,

Acaharathirakkingail house,

Parothur (Po),

Pattambi, Palakkad                                        -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                                  V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                           -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)   

 O R D E R

Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 1/02/2007 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine &  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 5000 kms till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,04,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

                                                      (C.C.No.109/2011)                       

Suneeshkumar,

S/o.Janardhanan,

Machaath House,

Thirumittakode (PO),

Koottanad, Palakkad                                      -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

 O R D E R

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, driver by profession purchased a minidor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 1/02/2007 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace/repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 50000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,04,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

                                                      (C.C.No.110/2011)                       

Surendran,

S/o.Velayudhan,

Mamminikunnath House,

Pulasseri Po, Pattambi,

Palakkad.                                                     -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 8/10/2006 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number  of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for  correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,97,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

                                                          (C.C.No.111/2011)                    

K.Rajan,

S/o.Nayadi,

Karakottamel  House,

Vilayur (PO),

Thiruvegappura, Palakkad                      -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 30/09/2006 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a no. of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine  and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting  for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,97,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.113/2011)

Usman,

S/o.Hamsa,

Edantharakattil House,

Vilayur (PO),

Pattambi, Palakkad                    -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 29/11/2006 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 35000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,99,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.114/2011)

A.P.Aboobacker Sidhique,

S/o.Kunhumohammed

Melepediyekal House,

Chemmalassery  (PO),

Malappuram.                    -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on 10/08/2006 for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to toe the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a no. of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,23,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.115/2011)

Aboobacker,

S/o.Muhammed

Vattaparambil House,

Vadanamkurissi (PO),

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  13/02/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number  of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties  have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine  and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 50000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,04,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.117/2011)

Radhakrishnan.P

S/o.Janaki Amma,

Pariyarathu  House,

Pulassery  (PO),

Pattambi, Palakkad                                        -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  18/09/2006  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,97,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.118/2011)

Abilash.A

S/o.velayudhan,

Appankuzhi Palliyalil  House,

Pulassery  (PO),Koppam,

Pattambi, Palakkad                                        -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  25/05/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have  not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 35000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,99,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.119/2011)

Muhammed Faisal,

S/o.Ummar,

Karumanakundil House,

Pulassery  (PO),Koppam,

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  12/10/2006  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,07,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.122/2011)

V.P.Anilkumar,

S/o.Raman Nair,

Thekkeveluthedath House,

Mulayankavu (PO),

Kulukkallur via.,  Palakkad                                        -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  09/02/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to toe the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a no. of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties  have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 2^nd opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 1^st  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 35000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he would not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insulting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,12,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.150/2011)

Sathyan,

S/o.Sivasankaran,

61/2, Padinjarevalappil House,

Vilayur (PO), Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant is a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party. The dealer on  29/10/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number  of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 60000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,17,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.151/2011)

Muhammed Ali.P

S/o.Pocker,

Paliyalil House,

Kulukallur, Mulayankavu (PO), Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  04/08/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have  not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.152/2011)

Unnukrishnan.P.K.,

S/o.Ayyappan,

Padathilkunnathu House,

Vilayur (PO), Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  18/01/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow  the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties  have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 45000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,99,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.153/2011)

Abdul Razak.C

S/o.Muhammedkutty,

Chathezhathu House,

Pattambi Post,

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  01/01/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties  have  not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 50000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,18,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.154/2011)

Sudhakaran,

S/o.Madhavan,

Padinjarevalappil House,

Vilayur (PO), Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  12/01/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow  the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number  of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 50000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,04,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.155/2011)

Ali.K.

S/o.Moosa,

Kollaruthodi House,

Mannengode Post, Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  19/12/2006  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties  have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 65000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,02,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.156/2011)

Muhammed Ali.T.P.

S/o.Kunenthi,

Thottakarapaliyalil House,

Kodumunda Post, Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  12/01/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 25000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting  for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,250/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.157/2011)

Sahadulla.K.

S/o.Nabeesa,

Kunneerukattil House,

Vadunthara, Mannengode Post,

Pulassery via, Pattambi

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant,  a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  01/01/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow  the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st  opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd  opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 55000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,900/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

(C.C.No.159/2011)

Sakker Hussain,

S/o.Moideen,

Malavattathu House,

Koorachipady Post,

Naduvattom via,

Palakkad                                             -          Complainant

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

                                V/s

1.The Managing  Director,

   M/s.Force Motors Limited,

   Pune Road, Akuri, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv.E.Ramachandran)

2.The Managing Partner,

    M/s.Anugraha Automobiles,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 1                          -           Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.K.K.Sudhir)  

Complaint in brief.

Complainant, a driver by profession purchased a minidoor/CB/3 seats autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party, the dealer on  10/05/2007  for an amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. The manufacturer had offered  warranty for the vehicle for 180 days from the date of sale of the vehicle with the obligation to replace / repair, free of charge such parts as detailed in the service manual. Immediately on delivery of the vehicle, complainant understood that contrary to the assurance  given by opposite parties that the vehicle will give a mileage of more than 25 km/litre, mileage was only 12-15 km/litre. The same was reported to 2^nd opposite party who in turn promised that the mileage will improve after second service. Further within one month after the purchase itself, the vehicle stopped abruptly on the road while plying with passengers. Complainant had to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for service. 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the complaint was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle as the air cleaner assembly attached to the engine of the vehicle was fitted just 6 -7 inches above the surface. The low positioning of the air cleaner filter  and other equipment of the air cleaner assembly allows rain water inducted to the engine while plying the  vehicle when it is raining. Consequently wet dust, waste water and other wastes are also absorbed into engine  making it damaged and is the reason why the vehicle stops abruptly. 2^nd opposite party also informed that as there are a number of similar cases, the defects are communicated to the company and they in turn had promised  to  recall the batch of vehicles for rectifying the defect. The grievance of the complaint is that opposite parties have not acted  as per their promise and has not recalled the vehicles for correction. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant hopefully waited for curing the manufacturing defects inherent in the vehicle. Due to repeated complaints, 1^st opposite party had modified the engine and  changed the position of air cleaner. Apart from that due to low mounting position of the engine and other accessories, the crank shaft, connecting  rod, hosing, exhaust devices, oil assembly etc. are often damaged and the performance of the vehicle was very poor. Complainant had to undertook engine works within 20,000 – 25,000 kms which normally has to be done when the vehicle covers  1 lakh kilometers. Moreover in the year 2008, the 1^st opposite party stopped  the dealership  of 2^nd   opposite party. The autorickshaw of the complainant had only plied around 50000 km till the date of complaint. Majority of days the vehicle  could not be driven due to complaints as stated above. Complainant has purchased the  vehicle by availing bank loan. Due to the above situation he could not repay the loan promptly and the bank officials are repeatedly insisting  for settling the dues. In the said circumstances on 10/03/2011 complainant alongwith some other owners of the vehicle  approached M/s.Radhiya Motors Thrissur who is the authorized service agent of 1^st opposite party to know the company’s plan to cure the defects. It was informed that the company has stopped the production of the said model of the vehicle from 2010 onwards and even  the spare parts are stopped and not available. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,21,500/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost of the proceedings.

1^st and 2^nd opposite party resisted the complaints with the following contentions.

According to 1^st opposite party the vehicles were extensively used by the complainants. Further  complainants have not  serviced the vehicle regularly as per the schedule  and hence not eligible for any of the benefits under warranty. 1^st opposite party deny the  say of the complainants that the lower positioning of Air cleaner assembly is the cause of the complaints alleged in the petitions.   According to 1^st opposite party Air cleaner assembly is located in the vehicle at convenient and standard location. The Air cleaner fitted to vehicle is provided with snorkel arrangement for pure dust free air suction from the atmosphere. Further the said snorkel is positioned at roof top of the vehicle as per its approved standard design and is a standard fitment approved by the competent authorities. Hence the allegation of the complainants is without any technical sanctity. Moreover the Air cleaner assembly including air fitter is a sealed unit and there is absolutely no chance for entrance of water on roads to it. There is no opening / gap or any media through which the outside water can enter into the Air filters. Further as a safety measure the air cleaner assembly is provided with un-loader  valve which collects dust in air and throws out. The  vehicle is also provided with Air-warm indicator on the instrument plate, easily visible to driver. If this is found glowing steadily it indicates Air cleaner filter element is clogged and needs immediate replacement. All the above mentioned information with necessary instruction for maintenance is provided in the Owners Manual provided to the complainant. 1^st opposite party also states that the probable cause of alleged defects can be the  following. That the air filter is not replaced with genuine air filter, the damage to the paper element of the air filter if replacement is not done as per schedule or use of non genuine air filters may lead to direct entry of dirt to the engine components.  Further if the engine is allowed to run with chocked air filter element, that may result in less air for combustion and resultantly high smoke, poor pick up and poor mileage.

1^st opposite party further submits that the production of Minidor  vehicle has not been stopped as alleged by the complainants and also spare parts etc. are also readily available. 1^st opposite party has more than 13 dealers and service stations for 14 districts in Kerala State. According to 1^st opposite party the present condition of the vehicles is not due to any manufacturing  defect or deficiency in service, instead due to negligence in maintenance and improper use like overloading, rash driving etc. Further the body frame and flooring rusting is due to frequent  washing of vehicle with salty water and irregular servicing. 1^st opposite party submits that since the warranty period is over and complainants have not complied the terms and conditions of warranty and has not repaired the vehicle with authorized service centre etc., 1^st opposite party is not bound by the warranty conditions. Hence prays for dismissal of complaints. 

2^nd opposite party has made specific denial of the entire complaint and submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect.

The evidence adduced by the complainants in the batch cases consist of their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/106/11, Ext.A1 marked in CC/109/11,  Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/110/11, Ext.A1 to A2 marked in CC/111/11, Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/113/11, Ext.A1 to A10 marked in CC/114/11, Ext.A1 to A2 marked in CC/115/11, Ext.A1 to A5 marked in CC/116/11, Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/118/11, Ext.A1 marked in CC/119/11, Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/122/11, Ext.A1 to A2 marked in CC/150/11, Ext.A1 marked in CC/151/11, Ext.A1 to A2 marked in CC/152/11, Ext.A1 to A2 marked in CC/153/11, Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/154/11, Ext.A1 marked in CC/155/11, Ext.A1 to A3 marked in CC/156/11, Ext.A1 marked in CC/157/11, Ext.A1 to A4 marked in CC/159/11. Complainants examined as  PW1 in CC/117/11,  PW2 in CC/122/11, PW3 in CC/115/11, PW4 in CC/150/11,  PW5 in CC/156/11, PW6 in CC/111/11, PW7 in CC/118/11. 

Opposite party 1 & 2 has also filed their respective chief affidavit. No documentary evidence adduced on their part. Commission report marked as Ext.C1.

Heard the complainants and opposite parties in the batch case. All the complainants are drivers by profession and eking their livelihood by plying the autorickshaw in dispute. The defects of the vehicles as alleged by the complainants  are more or less similar, the main among them are low mileage, engine stoppage while plying, the low positioning of the air cleaner and other equipments. According to the complainants,  due to the low positioning of the air cleaner and other equipments rain water, dust and other wastes enters the engine which results in its stoppage. Opposite party on the other hand has contended that the air cleaner is provided with snorkel arrangement for pure dust free air suction from the atmosphere and is positioned at the roof top of the vehicle as per its approved standard design and is a standard fitment approved by the competent authorities. Further it’s a sealed unit and there is no chance for entrance of water into it. Though 1^st opposite party has pleaded so in the version and affidavit no evidence is forthcoming on the part of 1^st opposite party to prove the same. Neither documentary evidence adduced nor any expert on the part of the company examined to prove the technical aspects. It is also noted that no question with regard to the said aspects was put to the expert commissioner appointed by the Forum also. Expert commissioner has filed a commission report with regard to the defects in the  vehicles in disputes and the report is marked as Ext.C1. What the expert commissioner has reported with regard to the positioning of the air filtering is as follows:

Para 4 . As per original  fitting, position of air filter assembly is below the flooring panel and approximately at 220mm  from the ground. But outer casing of the air filter assembly is only 170mm. The air filter pipe which is supposed to suck air from atmosphere is seen altered and placed elevated to the top of the roof of the vehicle.

Para 5. The low positioning of the air filter will suck dust particles into the engine cylinder. Rain water will enter into engine through the air filter when the vehicle is running through water logged area upto its floor level. Considering the nature of usage of this kind of vehicles through rural Panchayath roads having pot holes which will be water logged during the rainy season, low positioning of the air filter assembly can be a major cause of failure as alleged.

So according to the expert  commissioner the low positioning of the air filter is the reason for the alleged defects of the vehicle. But it is noted that the commissioner has not noted the same as a manufacturing defect, but has stated that considering the present  status of the vehicles, repairing is not advisable.

Further commissioner has reported the specific condition of the vehicles with respect to each one as follows:

CC/106/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-4010 The Vehicle is not in running

 condition and it has clocked 72371 km.

2. It is reported by the owner of the Vehicle that the engine  has undergone   4 engine  overhauling and breakage  of crank case, over heating of rectifier etc. The cost for one engine overhauling at Standards of cost of spare, labour, transportation (Cost of towing  the vehicle to the service centre) costs of lubricants etc., will come to 7,000/- so the total cost incurred is Rs.28,000/-.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body frame and the flooring  

               panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used from 2010 June.

CC/109/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-5899. The Vehicle is not in running for the

 last 6 years condition and it has clocked 30000  km.

   2. The engine has undergone one engine overhauling and half the cost was

        borne by the dealer. Engine broke down again but engine  overhauling

        could not be completed due to unavailability of spares.

CC/110/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-2032. The vehicle is   in running  condition but not fit for hiring and it has  clocked 130962 km on the odomter.
2. The engine has undergone 3 engine overhauling costing around Rs.21000 during the first four years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for hiring and is not reliable for long run as there is excessive smoke emitted from the exhaust and oil coming out from the oil breather pipe and crank case broken and replaced once.

CC/111/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-1892 The Vehicle is not in running  condition and it has clocked 136002 km in its odo.
2. The engine has undergone 15 times  engine overhauling costing around Rs.80,000 during the first three years. Broken crank case replaced once. Crank shaft problem rectified by replacing it with a second hand crank shaft for Rs.3500.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used for the last two years. The vehicle was repaired to the fitness test after carrying out engine work, painting etc., but could not present because of the broken crank case.

CC/113/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-2899 The vehicle is not in running  condition and it has clocked 85407 km.
2. The engine has undergone 6 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.42000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for hiring because of engine overhauling and subsequent troubles. The vehicle is not being used for the last one year.

CC/114/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-53-688 The vehicle is not in running  condition and it has clocked 27881 km.
2. The engine has undergone 3 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.21000.

Remarks : The vehicle is not being used for the last  2 ½ years.

CC/115/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-4139 The vehicle is not in running  condition and it has clocked 91563 km.
2. The engine has undergone 8 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.56000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used for more than two years. Engine crank case has broken and replaced. Its air filter  is modified to have its opening end at the roof level of the vehicle.

CC/117/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-1933  The vehicle is in running condition but not used for hiring and it has clocked 107873 km.
2. The engine has undergone 7 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.49000 during the first four years.

Remarks : The owner has modified the position of air filter assembly  and piped it to the roof of the vehicle. He has to do air filter cleaning almost every week to avoid engine chocking. Engine crank case cracked and replaced. Rectifier is heated up leading to battery complaint. Fitted an alternator to avoid the above problem. The vehicle is giving a mileage of 20 kmpl.

CC/118/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-5929  The vehicle is not in running condition and it has  clocked 37050 km.
2. The engine has undergone 3 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.21000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used for the last two years.

CC/119/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-2065  The vehicle is not in running condition and it has  clocked 74105 km.
2. The engine has undergone 2 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.14000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service. 

CC/122/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-4114  The vehicle is not in running condition and it has  clocked 110927 km.
2. The engine has undergone 3 engine   overhauling costing around Rs.21000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body.  The wiring is burned during use and it is replaced completely. The vehicle is not being used for the last 1 ½ years.

CC/150/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-8039  The vehicle is not in running condition and it has  clocked 46786 km.
2. Crank case broken and engine work is carried out two times costing around Rs.14000. Altered the air filter pipe to the top.   

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used from 2010 June.

CC/151/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3549  The vehicle is not in running condition now and it has clocked 40287 km.
2. The engine has undergone one engine overhauling costing around Rs.7000 and could not carry out the next repair due to unavailability  of spares. Altered the air filter pipe of the vehicle to the top.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. 

CC/152/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3596  The vehicle is not in running condition now and it has clocked 99999 km.
2. The engine has undergone  3 engine overhauling costing around Rs.21000 during the first three years.  

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used from 2010. Vehicle is almost in a total loss condition.

CC/153/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3252  The vehicle is not in running for the last 2 ½ years. The vehicle has run  only for 16252 km. 
2. Undergone only one engine work.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service. 

CC/154/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3580 
2. The vehicle is not in running condition and it has clocked 52027 km. 

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service and totally deteriorated. The vehicle is not being used for the last 3 ½ years. 

CC/155/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3074  The vehicle is  in running condition and it has clocked 42100 km. 
2. The engine has undergone 3 engine overhauling costing around Rs.21000.

Remarks : The engine trouble started with water entering through the air filter assembly. Modified the air filter opening to the top side of the vehicle to avoid the above problem. Even after the engine repair there is excessive  oil leak from the breather pipe. There is unacceptable smoke through the exhaust pipe. The complainant has converted the vehicle to owner’s vehicle because of its unreliable performance.

CC/156/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-6832  The vehicle is  in running condition and it has clocked 48327 km. 
2. Engine overhauling is done twice from the authorized service centre. 

Remarks : The vehicle is used only for one and a half years. They have modified the air filter position to the top through piping. The major complaints during its service was oil leak, low pulling and low mileage. Major problem was excessive wearing out of piston rings.

CC/157/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-3247  The vehicle is not  in running condition and it has clocked 87093 km. 
2. The engine has undergone 2 engine overhauling costing around Rs.14000 during the first three years. 

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service. The electrical wiring is burned during  its use and it is replaced completely. The engine is suffering from oil leak.

CC/159/2011

1. Vehicle Registration No: KL-52-5626  The vehicle is not  in running condition and it has clocked 24211 km. 
2. The engine has undergone 2 engine overhauling costing around Rs.14000 during the first three years.

Remarks : The vehicle is unfit for service having its body, frame and the flooring panels rusted partially. The vehicle is not being used for the last two years. Air filter piping is modified. 

Majority of the vehicle as per Ext.C1 is not in running condition. Some of them reported to be in running condition is stated to be unfit for hiring and also servicing due to the rusting of its body frame and flooring panel. Some of the vehicles whose air filter position has been changed to top also were showing problems like excessive oil leak, unacceptable smoke  etc., As per the odometer reading noted by the Commissioner and also as per the report it is understood that all the vehicles were plying on road from the date of purchase, but with periodical repairing only. As per Ext.C1 it is understood that all the complainants who has purchased the Minidor for eking their lively hood has suffered a lot both mentally and financially. Although commissioner has reported that a No. of overhawling  has been done for each vehicle, there is no supporting evidence adduced by the complainants. Only some complainants has produced  bills, that too not specifically for engine overhawling. PW1 to PW7 has deposed that the bills were sent by them  to the company. But no steps were taken by the complainants for production of the same.

Though manufacturing defect as such is not stated, serious defects with respect to all the vehicles is noted in Ext.C1. Repairing of the vehicle is not advisable is stated considering  the present condition of the vehicle, due to non availability of spare parts and due to stoppage of manufacture of the said model by the company. Though opposite parties have denied the same they have not produced any piece of evidence to show that still the company is manufacturing such model and also spare parts are readily available.

In Tata Motors Vs.Rajesh Tyagi and Others, 2014(1)CLT 238 (NC) it was held that it is  not necessary to prove manufacturing  defect to make the manufacturer liable. Further it is a settled position that the dealer cannot wash off his hands after making a sale and shift his burden to the manufacturer as the consumer  is primarily concerned with the dealer from whom he buys the goods as privity of contract is between them and not with the manufacturer. In Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs. Susheel Kumar  Gabgotra & Another AIR(2006) (SC) 1586, Hon’ble Apex court has held that in case no manufacturing defect is found in the  vehicle, replacement / refund of price should not be ordered and only some compensation should be awarded. Considering the fact that all the vehicles are of the model 2006 – 07 and the vehicles has been used for many years  even though with periodical repairs, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to each of the complainants will meet the ends of justice.

 In the result complaints partly allowed and we order the following:

Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally  directed to pay  each complainants  an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each to the complainants as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which complainants are entitled for 9% interest from the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of  October  2014. 

  Seena H

  President   

 Shiny.P.R.

  Member

 Suma.K.P.

 Member

                                             APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-4010

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

CC/109/2011

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle NO.KL-52-5899

CC/110/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-2032

Ext.A2 –  Photocopy of Purchase Order issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department

CC/111/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-1892

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by Opposite party

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW6 –  Rajan

CC/113/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-2899

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

CC/114/2011

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle No.KL-53-688

Ext.A2 – Delivery Challan issued by opposite party dated 03/8/2006

Ext.A3 – Cash Receipt dated 3/8/2006 for Rs.10,400/- issued by opposite party

Ext.A4 – Contract Carriage Permit issued Motor Vehicle Department

Ext.A5 series – Bills dated 13/2/2008 & 8/10/2010  issued by National Garage,

                       Kunnamkulam (2 Nos)

Ext.A6 series – Photocopy of bills (2 nos) dated 30/12/08 & 13/2/10 issued by

                       Mahadeva Motors, Koppam

Ext.A7  – Photocopy of cash bills dated 5/10/2010 issued by Adithya Auto Store.

Ext.A8 – Photocopy of bill dated 11/2/2008 issued by Dhanam Auto Stores

Ext.A9 series – Photocopy of bills (5 nos)

Ext.A10 – Photocopy of Invoice for Rs.981/ issued by Stanes Motor Parts Ltd.

              Thrissur

CC/115/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-4139

Ext.A2 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW3 –Aboobackar.V.P 

CC/117/2011

Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of Registration Certificate  of Vehicle NO.KL-52-1933

Ext.A2 –  Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department

Ext.A3 series – Bills (7 Nos)

Ext.A4 – Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A5 – Purchase Order dated 18/9/2006 issued by opposite party

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Radhakrishnan.P

CC/118/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-5929

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW7 – Abilash.A.P 

CC/119/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-2065

CC/122/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-4114

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW2 – V.P.Anilkumar.

CC/150/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-8039

Ext.A2 – Bill dated 27/6/2011 of Mahadeva Motors

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW4 – Sathyan.P.V.

CC/151/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-6832

 CC/152/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3596

Ext.A2 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

 CC/153/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3252

Ext.A2 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

 CC/154/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3580

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

CC/155/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3074

CC/156/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3549

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW5 – Muhammadali.T.P

CC/157/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-3247

 CC/159/2011

Ext.A1 –  Registration Certificate (Original) of Vehicle NO.KL-52-5626

Ext.A2 –  Service Coupon Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 – Demand Notice issued by Revenue Department

Ext.A4 – Contract Carriage Permit (original) issued Motor Vehicle Department.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties in all cases

NIL

Commissioner Report filed in all cases

Ext.C1 – Expert Commission Report.

Cost

Rs.5,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.