By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to take back autorickshaw bearing No. KL 12 E 6502 and to return the amount paid by the complainant that is Rs.1,43,000/- being the price, and pay the complainant Rs.60,000/- the amount paid towards insurance, tax, Registration and extra fittings paid by the complainant, Rs.50,000/- as compensation, cost and installment amounts paid by the complainant.
2. Brief of the complaint:- Tempted by advertisements, the complainant purchased a diesel autorickshaw from opposite party No.2 on 30.08.2010. The said vehicle was manufactured by opposite party No.1. Then the complainant registered the vehicle at Regional Transport office, Kalpetta as Registration No. KL 12 E 6502. The complainant paid the price by paying Rs.41,500/- as cash and balance amount by raising finance arranged by opposite party No.2 with opposite party No.3. The repayment of loan is by installments of Rs.4,000/- monthly. The complainant paid the installments till last month of filing of this complaint. The vehicle was purchased for his livelihood. The vehicle is having one year Warranty. After one week of purchase of autorickshaw, the vehicle showed some complaints to the gear box. The complainant taken the vehicle to opposite party No.2 and repaired. After repair, the vehicle again had the same problem. It was taken to opposite party No.2 at KVR Motors, Kalpetta on six or seven occasions. The defect is not completely cured. Now the autorickshaw is having starting problem also. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in toto towards repair. At last on 25.05.2011, when the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 did not care the vehicle and cured the mistake. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed this complaint for the redressal of his grievances.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. Opposite party No.3's Notice served on 26.07.2011 but did not appear before the Forum and opposite party No.3 is set ex-parte on 16.09.2011. In the version of opposite parties No.1 and 2, they stated that the complaint is an experimental one and is filed due to vengeance towards a mechanic in Mananthavady shop. There is no complaint to the vehicle as alleged. The opposite party contented that KVR Motors had working arrangement with Bran Motors, Mananthavady. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The entire complaints reported by complainant were entered in the job card signed by the complainant at the time of repair. No periodical services was done by the complainant over his vehicle. The opposite parties contented that the repair in gear box is not true. The repair in gear box is not reported till this time and the complainant used the vehicle extensively without periodical services. The extensive use of the vehicle without necessary care is the reason for the complaints if any caused to the vehicle. This opposite parties are not liable for it. Hence opposite parties states that opposite parties are not liable to the remedies.
4. On perusal of complaint, affidavit, documents and version of opposite parties the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, the complainant filed documents and proof affidavit. Complainant is examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6. Commissioner Report is marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle KL 12 E 6502 Autorickshaw. Ext.A2 is the Permit. Ext.A3 Series 6 in numbers are the Bill for repair expenses. Ext.A4 is the Acknowledgment of entrustment of vehicle with KVR Motors, Kalpetta. Ext.A5 is the Service Booklet. Ext.A6 is the summons send by Arbitration Court to the complainant. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and 3 witnesses were examined from the side of opposite parties, respectively as OPW1 to OPW3. Opposite parties documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B4. Ext.B1 series are the Job Cards dated 30.01.2013. Ext.B2 series are the satisfactory letters issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.B3 is the Job Card dated 03.05.2012 and Ext.B4 is the Job Card dated 03.05.2012. The opposite parties contented that the complainant never raised a complaint in the gear box and in no job cards the complaint of gear box is reported. The complainant filed I.A 163/2011 to take out a commission to inspect the vehicle. This Forum allowed the petition and Motor Vehicle Inspector is appointed as Commissioner to examine the vehicle. The commissioner inspected the vehicle and filed report. This report is marked as Ext.C1. In the report, the commissioner clearly stated that after launching of new model 445 M Autorickshaw, the manufacturer had recognized some major manufacturing defects in the rear axle power train in majority of vehicles. The manufacturer has over came this complaint by providing re-modification kit, replacing the existing system to the consumers and fitment of the renovation kit was done through their authorized stations. In this vehicle, the same manufacturing defects was noticed. Hence the vehicle was not fit for service. M/s. KVR, Wayanad has not provided re- modification Kit to the consumer till this date. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle have gear box complaint and even after repeated service the defect is not cured so far. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed objection to the commissioner report and contented that the vehicle is kept in a negligent manner by the complainant without caring it. But commissioner stated that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and was not fit for service. So such a contention of opposite parties No.1 and 2 will not lie. Another contention of opposite parties No.1 and 2 is that opposite parties No.1 and 2 are not aware of providing re-modification kit to the consumers. The commissioner clearly stated that after launching of new model 445 M autorickshaw, the manufacturer has recognized some manufacturing defects in the rear axle power train in majority of vehicles and the manufacturer has over come this complaint by providing re-modification kit to the consumers. To ascertain and confirm this fact, the commissioner examined another vehicle of same make KL 12 E 3531 (445 M) and found that due to gear box complaint, the manufacturer had provided re-modification kit and now it is working successfully. So the contention of opposite parties No.1 and 2 will not lie to that aspect. Another contention of opposite parties No.1 and 2 is that the vehicle involved in this case do not have gear box complaint, and the complainant never reported such a complaint during service time. To prove it Opposite parties No.1 and 2 produced Ext.B1, Ext.B3 and Ext.B4 Job cards before the Forum. But complainant says that whenever he entrusted the vehicle for service, he reported gear box complaint also, but the service people never looked into and entered in job cards. On perusal, the Forum found that these Job cards are prepared by the service persons and in Ext.B1 and Ext.B4 no signature of complainant is obtained. The commission Report is submitted by a responsible Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Wayanad which is a reliable document before the Forum. Even if opposite parties No.1 and 2 field objection to the Commission Report, they did not take any steps to remit back the Commission Report if they have serious objection in it. So by analyzing all these evidences, the Forum reached to a conclusion that the vehicle involved in this case have gear box complaint and have manufacturing defect in the rear axle power train in it. The opposite parties admitted that the vehicle is still in the custody of opposite parties. The prayer of the complainant is for an Order directing the opposite parties to return the amount paid by him ie Rs.1,43,000/- as the price of the vehicle and Rs.60,000/- being the amount paid by the complainant towards insurance, tax, registration and extra fittings to the vehicle. The Forum found that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in dealing with the matter. Since the vehicle is used by the complainant nearby for 1 year, the complainant is not entitled to get the Registration fees, insurance premium, tax and extra fittings charges from the opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.1,43,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand only) to the complainant being the price of the vehicle and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The complainant is directed to provide all assistance and help to transfer the vehicle to the person to whom opposite parties No.1 and 2 suggested, if it is necessary. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest thereafter.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2014.
Date of Filing:23.06.2011.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Vinod. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Eby. Assistant Service Manager, KVR Motors, Kalpetta.
OPW2. Devraj. Mechanic, KVR Bajaj.
OPW3. Joseph. K. J. Personal Manager, KVR Motors, Calicut.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Registration Certificate
A2. Copy of Contract Carriage Permit.
A3(Series). Bills (6 Nos).
A4. Acknowledgment of Entrustment of Vehicle. Dt:04.10.2012.
A5. Service Booklet.
A6. Summons send by Arbitration Court to complainant.
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:13.03.2012.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties:-
B1(Series). Job Card(2Nos). Dt:30.01.2013.
B2(Series). Satisfactory Letters issued by complainant.
B3. Job Card. Dt:03.05.2012.
B4. Job Card. Dt:03.05.2012.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
