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 is a purchaser of a goods vehicle manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The purchase cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,60,794/- . The vehicle had loan of Rs.6,70,000/- and the delivery was effected on 26.10.2006. Regarding the carrying capacity of the vehicle the assurance of the Opposite Party was as such that the vehicle carries 9 Tonnes of goods. On plying the vehicle by the complaint it could understand that the assurance on the capacity of tonnage is wrong. The vehicle was not in a position to pull six tonnes of weight. Beyond this the vehicle had other defects the clutch was broken, engine oil leakage, and the emission of excess smoke with a hint that the engine is having some defect. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party who is the dealer of the 2^nd one was manufactured of this and even after the service of defects good not be rectified. Frustrated by the defective vehicle the Complainant decided to surrender the vehicle to the financier for Rs.4,02,000/- on 13.12.2007. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant was for personal use and the income from that vehicle was mainly depended for the Complainant livelihood. The Opposite Party's act includes the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service selling a defective vehicle to the complainant. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the complainant Rs. 4,98,260/- towards compensation along with cost of this complaint.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not made their appearance on receiving notice and they are declared exparte. The sum up of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party is as follows. The complainant purchased TATA CPT 1109 CCB manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party sold by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party has not given any assurance of carrying 9 Tonnes of goods. The purchase of the vehicle was on the full satisfaction on the terms and conditions detailed in the operative service book handed over to the Complainant. The vehicle had a warranty of 3 years, the periodical free services of the vehicle was not availed from the 1^st Opposite party. The defect if any the complaint would have brought the vehicle for verification and rectification of the same. The leaflet and brochure of the vehicle are with specifications of maximum payload, maximum permissible load and check up carried the vehicle. It is also specified in the R.C of the vehicle. The allegation of the Complainant that when the vehicle is loaded with 6 Tonnes it cannot pull the load and the allegation of other complaints as such excess smoke leakage of oil from engine as such are not correct and baseless. The purchase of the vehicle was only after checking and verifying of the vehicle with the terms and conditions as in the brochure. The vehicle is not having any manufactured defect. The 1^st Opposite Party has not concealed anything on the terms and conditions including the carrying capacity of the vehicle. The complaint is filed on experimental basis it is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Whether any unfair trade practice deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party filed proof affidavits. The Complainant produced documents Ext.A1 to A8. The Ext.X1 to X4 are the documents

summoned. Apart from the documents the complainant and 1^st Opposite Party tendered oral evidence in this case. The 2^nd Opposite Party the manufacturer is declared exparte in this case.

5. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party is defective in manufacture. The capacity of the vehicle to pull the load not in tally with the stipulations in the brochure and assurance of the 1^st Opposite Party. The purchase of the vehicle was on the assurance that the pulling capacity of the vehicle is 9 tonnes. But when the vehicle was plied it was not in a position to pull the load of at least 6 tonnes in weight. The vehicle had other defects as such excess smoke leakage of oil from the engines and so on. Frustrated by the defective vehicle, the complainant was forced to surrender the vehicle to financier at a least rate. The entire transaction incurred on the Complainant heavy loss. The vehicle was purchased on 26.10.2006 and two services were availed from the 1^st Opposite Party. Ext.X1 and X2 are the service records of the 1^st and 2^nd services on 04.12.2006 and 22.01.2007 respectively. Ext.X2 contains the acknowledgment of satisfaction by the party who entrusted the vehicle for service full satisfaction is recorded in this respect. The Complainant himself had admitted that the vehicle was sold on 13.12.2007 at the price of Rs.4,02,000/-. The Complainant is not in possession of the vehicle when the complaint is filed. Another contentions of the Complainant is that the pay load of the vehicle described in Ext.A2 is 8355 Kg whereas registration particulars in Ext.X3 gross vehicle weight is 11900 the unladen weight of the vehicle is 4640. From the document Ext.A2 it is seen that the maximum payload is as 8355 Kg for cab chassis version as per IS 9211. More over the vehicle is not in possession of the Complainant. Regarding the manufacturing defect if any no expert opinion is sort out in this case. We are in the opinion that there is no deficiency or any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties in the sale of the vehicle to the Complainant.

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

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st August 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Thomas P.J. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Muraleedharan Sales Manager, K.T.C., Kannur.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Operator's Service Book.

A2. Specification of TATA LPT 1109 EX.

A3 Series Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:15.12.2006.

A4. Repossessed Vehicle Inventory List.

A5. Tax Invoice. dt:04.12.2006.

A6. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A7. Copy of National Permit for Goods Carriage. dt:24.11.2006.

A8. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:09.02.2008.

X1 Series. Job Card

X2 Series. Job Card.

X3. Letter. dt:18.05.2009.

X4. Letter. dt:09.06.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.