By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Minidor CB Three Wheeler manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party availing a loan from Lunawat Investment at Sowcarpet in Chennai. The repayment of the loan was scheduled to be paid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 6,585/- in every month. The vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 28.12.2006 and the complainant deposited Rs.29,800/- in addition to the loan amount availed. An additional amount of Rs.17,000/- was also spent by the Complainant for the body works in short the Complainant had to spent Rs.2,19,800/- for the purchase of the vehicle. The warranty offered by the Opposite Party was for 6 months. From the very beginning of plying the vehicle it found to be defective. The consumption of oil was excess in quantity, milage of the vehicle was very law and it was not in such a condition to meet the milage of 15 kms. Though the Opposite Party offered 30 kms/ one litre diesel. The Complainant became fed up with the use of vehicle. Time and again the vehicle was in need of repair and the service centre of the said vehicle was in Calicut. Riding the vehicle to such a distance caused a heavy loss. The Complainant already remitted 17 instalments towards the loan amount.
2. When the repair of the vehicle could not do anything effective lawyer notice was sent for the replacement of the vehicle. Since 11.7.2008 onwards the vehicle had been off the road. The 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and 2nd Opposite Party is the dealer. The vehicle could not be used at least for 150 days because of the recurrent complaints. There may be an order directing the Opposite party:-
1. To replace the defective vehicle. 2. To compensate the Complainant with Rs.1,25,115/- along with other cost that the Complainant spent for the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.77,300/- including the cost.
3. The 1st Opposite Party filed version. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are deleted in respect of the order in I.A 251/09 dated 17.11.2009
4. The gist of the version filed by the 1st Opposite Party is as follows:- The sale of the vehicle to the Complainant is not directly connected to the 1st Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the company offered the milage of 30 KM/ 1 litter diesel is false. The relation between the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party is like a principle to principle basis. There is no omission or latches on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is in noway connected to the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party purchased the vehicle in lump sum from the 1st Opposite Party. The vehicle sold to the 2nd Opposite Party was tested and trialled and found satisfactory in the quality control test before the delivery of the vehicle. The Automation Research Association of India approved the modal of the vehicle manufactured by the company. More over the vehicle sold to the 2nd Opposite Party were of good condition and free from any defects in manufacture. The claim of the Complainant beyond the period of warranty cannot be entertained. The Complainant had not raised any allegation on the quality of the vehicle in the warranty period. More over whenever the free service was in turn this Opposite Party offered it. The claim of the Complainant for the replacement of the vehicle is after the period of warranty and because of that reason alone the claim cannot be entertained. The complaint is not maintainable it deserves dismissal with heavy cost.
5. The points in consideration are: Is there any deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties in the sale of the vehicle?. Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in the instant case consists of oral testimony of PW1, CW1 and the Exts.A1 to A24. 7. The case of the Complainant is that a Minidor CB Three Wheeler Goods vehicle manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party and purchased from the 2nd Opposite Party, the dealer of the manufacturer, found to be defective in manufacture. The complaint is for compensation from the Opposite Parties for selling the vehicle which is defective in manufacture. The vehicle was delivered on 28.12.2006 and at the time of delivery the vehicle had run a distance of at 1500 km. According to Ext A3, the service coupon book, the vehicle was plied a distance of 32692 km till the date of inspection of the Expert Commissioner. The contention of the 1st Opposite Party is that the vehicle was given a warranty of 180 days. The defect and replacement of the same are envisaged in the terms and conditions of the warranty. The vehicle in the instant case said to be having defects in the warranty period and it still persists. The repair would not serve the purpose since the vehicle is with inherent with manufacturing defect. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report filed by the defects noted are:- 1. Engine oil leaking through the head breather. 2. Difficult to self start engine in cold conditions. 3. Excessive blue smoke due to burning of engine oil. 4. Gear Box dislocated from seating due to broken foundation. 5. Gear shifting lever is dislocated.
8. The Commissioner could not drive the vehicle due to the above damages as reported in Ext.C1 and defects noted by the expert Commissioner as averred in the report is mechanical. The Commissioner is examined as CW1. It is stated that the mechanical defects detailed in the report can be considered as the manufacturing defects. It is further stated by the Expert Commissioner that the mechanical defects which are noted in the report are one and the same with the manufacturing defects. The defects found on examination of the vehicle could not be caused due to the improper or careless maintenance of the vehicle. The oil leakage through the head breather is a result of manufacturing defects as avered in the report. The complaint of starting motor cannot be the cause for the starting complaint according to the Commissioner Expert. The defect of the engine resulted in the complaint of starting. The blue smoke found ejected from the engine in excess quantity is also due to an another manufacturing defect. In the oral testimony of the expert it is reiterated that adulterated engine oil is not the reason for sending out excess blues smoke. Mere usage of vehicle in rough road cannot cause dislocation of gear box from the foundation. The vehicle issued to the Complainant on examination found to be having shifting of gear. The Odometer reading in Ext.C1 is 32692. The Complainant has not availed the free service offered by the 1st Opposite Party. The vehicle had undergone a service on 16.3.2007 when it was plied a distance of 6500 km which was properly authorised in the service book. The Complainant's plea is that in order to meet the free services offered by the 1st Opposite Party, the vehicle was to be driven a distance of 100 km to Calicut. The service of the company was available only from there. At the time of purchase according to the Complainant there was an offer of starting a service station in Wayanad District. The lone service station authorised by the 1st Opposite Party ceased to exists a short while after its opening. The report filed by the motor vehicle inspector who is the Commissioner Expert in this case shows that the vehicle sold to the Complainant is having manufacturing defects.
9. The vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 28.12.2006 and type of the vehicle is open in the class LGC (3) Wheeler. The Complainant has not produced the document to establish the price amount given to the 2nd Opposite Party. The cost of Goods Auto claimed by the Complainant are in excess than the price of the vehicle in same model claimed in similar other cases. Therein the price claimed as given for the purchase of the 2006 Modal LGC is Rs.1,50,000/- excluding the accessory works done by the Complainant. The odometer reading noted in Ext.C1 32692. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish the case in what extent the vehicle can be used in normal conditions of use. The vehicle is found to be inoperative in condition resulted by the manufacturing defects. The 2nd Opposite Party sold the vehicle to the Complainant and it is deemed to considered that the vehicle was purchased at the cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant has not produced sufficient documents to establish the amount spent for repair as claimed. How ever the vehicle is kept in an idle possession inoperative to use from the face of Ext.C1.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give Complainant Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation of selling the vehicle which is having manufacture defects along with cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The Complainant is also entitled for an interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till payment. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receiving this. Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st December 2009.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant.
PW1. Moideen Haji. Complainant.
CW1. C.V.M. Sharief Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party..
Nil. Exhibits for the the Complainant:
A1. Lawyer Notice. dt:1.06.2008 A2. Reply Notice. dt:21.07.2008. A3. Reply Notice. dt:24.06.2008. A4. Bill. dt:18.05.2007. A5. Bill. dt:24.01.2008. A6. Quotation. dt:16.05.2007. A7. Retail Invoice. dt:06.09.2007. A8. Quotation. dt:20.05.2009. A9. Stores Requisition. dt:20.05.2008. A10 Series.(2 Numbers) Bill. dt:09.04.2008. A11 Series (5 Numbers) Invoice. A12. Bill. dt:14.08.2007. A13. Invoice. dt:05.07.2007. A14. Invoice. dt:05.06.2007. A15. Invoice. dt:14.8.2007. A16. Bill. dt:04.07.2008. A17. Bill. dt:05.07.2008. A18 Series (3 numbers) Bill. dt:04.07.2008. A19 Series (3 numbers) Bill. dt:30.07.2009 . A20. Bill. dt:14.05.2009. A21. Bill. dt:11.05.2009. A22. Bill. dt:14.05.2009. A23. Service Coupon Book. A24. Copy of Certificate of Registration. C1. Commission Report. dt:09/09/2009. Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
| 
