DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of August 2017 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

             :  Smt.Suma.K.P, Member

             : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member         Date of Filing : 29/12/2012

                                                            CC/01/2013                                                                        

Rajappan,

S/o Pazhani Swami,

2/509, Rankanatha Puram,                                                             :      Complainant

Pudur PO, Mannarkkad.

(Adv.P.R.Jayakrishannan)

                                                                           Vs

1.  The Proprietor, Surya Motors,                                                    :      Opposite parties

     Melamuri, Palakkad PO.

(Adv.M.P.Rajesh)

2.  The Managing Director,

     Kumar Motors Pvt.Ltd,

     Gat No.316, Kasaramboli,

    Ambedwet PO, Pirangat, Mulshi,

    Pune 412 111.

(Adv.K.B.Arunkumar)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President,

          The complainant has purchased an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-50B-179 Engine No.AIG 0519690, chasis No. MDGDPGLX 3B 7P 02181 from the 1^st opposite party on 07.10.2011.  The 1^st opposite party has introduced the vehicle assuring that the auto rickshaw is having so many peculiarities, like more mileage than the other auto rickshaws etc.  And also assured that mechanically it is more strong and efficient than the other similar vehicles.  Believing the assurance given by the  1^st opposite party dealer, the complainant has purchased the vehicle.

          Complainant submitted that the frontage of the vehicle is cracked within one month from the date of purchase.  Chasis and frontage are not in a usable condition its stumbolts are frequently failing and its shock absorber are not in a working conditions.  Then the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party. He refused to repair the defects saying that its spare part are not supplying by the 2^nd opposite party. Now the vehicle is totally in such a condition that cannot be used in a public road safely.  These defects are the manufacturing defects occurred while producing these vehicles.     Complainant further submits that the vehicle cannot be used and is totally unfit for the use.  Complainant has spent Rs.1,71,640/- (Rupees One Lakh seventy one thousand six hundred and forty rupees only) including the road tax for three years and insurance of Rs.4,640/-(Rupees four thousand six hundred and forty only) for the purchase.  After that complainant has to spend some more money for its body work also. Complainant has purchased this vehicle with a loan from bank at Palakkad.  He has to repay the loan amount as earlier as possible.  Otherwise he will have to face legal proceedings for that.  This is a public carrier vehicle used as taxi autorickshaw.  As it cannot be used in a public road, there are no earnings from this vehicle and he could not repay his loan properly.  Therefore the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable for loss of the complainant.  Complainant has sent a registered lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party on 20.06.2012 to get the refund of an amount of Rs. 1,71,640/- (Rupees One Lakh seventy one thousand six hundred and forty rupees only) or to replace the vehicle with a new one.  The 1^st opposite party has received the notice and sent a reply notice, admitting the purchase of the vehicle, but denied all other allegation and stated that the company alone is responsible for the loss sustained to the complainant.  Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,71,640/- (Rupees One Lakh seventy one thousand six hundred and forty rupees only) as compensation or to replace the vehicle by a new one in good condition to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and issued notices to opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their separate version. 

          1^st opposite party filed version contending the following;-

1^st Opposite party admitted the purchase of the autorickshaw. But all the other allegations in the complaint were denied by this opposite party.  1^st opposite party contended that after purchase of the vehicle complainant had not approached 1^st opposite party even for the periodical maintenance and services.  So the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.  The case against the 1^st opposite party has to be dismissed with cost. 

            2^nd opposite party filed their version contending the following;-

2^nd opposite party admitted the purchase of the vehicle. They contended that the complainant has purchased the vehicle only after careful consideration and inspection of the side of vehicle.  2^nd opposite party has offered warranty for the period of 6 months for the vehicle from the date of sale or 15000 kilo meter whichever is earlier.  The warranty period of the vehicle was already expired on 06.04.2012.  This opposite party further contended that during the warranty period, this opposite party has not received any kind of complaint from the complainant regarding any manufacturing defects or otherwise.  If the alleged defects are existed immediately after the purchase of the vehicle as alleged, certainly the complainant would bring to the notice of the 1^st opposite party at the time of periodic service.  The contention of the complainant that when he had approached the 1^st opposite party to repair the alleged defects, the 1^st opposite party had refused to repair stating that this opposite party is not supplying the spare parts incorrect and denied by the opposite party.  This opposite party had already supplied necessary spare parts to the 1^st opposite party.  No communication was received from the 1^st opposite party requiring the supply of spare parts to this opposite party during the relevant time.  The product of the 2^nd opposite party purchased by the complainant is running successfully in the market.  The said vehicle is sturdy, durable and highly efficient.  The complainant had purchased the above vehicle only after testing and considering all the above factors and at the time of the purchase, the complainant was completely satisfied with the performance of the vehicle.  The complainant was issued the owner’s manual which gives valuable and clear information regarding the warranty conditions with respect of the said vehicle.  The contentions in the complaint that the alleged defects are manufacturing defects occurred at the time of producing the vehicle and are against the warranty and agreements, while selling the vehicle to the complainant are false and denied by the opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that all the so called complaints of the complaint in respect of the vehicle are only due to the rough use of the vehicle by the complainant.  It is specifically submitted that if the vehicle has any problem, the same caused entirely due to the rash driving or prevailing road condition and certainly not due to any manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint.  The alleged problems in the complaint are not attribute to any manufacturing defects.  This opposite party is not aware about the loan said to have been availed by the complainant for purchase of vehicle and this opposite party is not at all responsible for the defaults committed by the complainant in repaying the loan availed.  This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

Complainant filed interim application to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle and to file a detailed report. In the interest of justice application was allowed. Commissioner filed interim report stating that the vehicle involved in this case was not available for his inspection.

 Complainant and opposite parties filed their separate chief affidavit. No documentary or oral evidence is adduced by both the parties. Interim commission report is marked as Ext C1.

In this case the following issues are considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the remedy?

Issues 1 and 2

Complainant and 1^st opposite party heard. No representation for 2^nd opposite party. Opposite parties admitted the purchase of autorikshaw bearing registration No  (KL-50B-179) Engine No.AIG 0519690, chasis No. MDGDPGLX 3B 7P 02181. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed interim application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. In the interest of justice application was allowed. But the complainant did not appear before the Forum for cross examination. Opposite parties contended that complainant has purchased the vehicle only after careful consideration and inspection of the vehicle.  2^nd opposite party has offered warranty for the period of 6 months for the vehicle from the date of sale or 15000 kilo meter whichever is earlier.  The warranty period of the vehicle was already expired on 06.04.2012.  It is also contended that during the warranty period, opposite parties have not received any kind of complaint from the complainant regarding any manufacturing defects or otherwise. After the purchase of the vehicle the complainant had not approached 1^st opposite party even for free services provided by the company. In order to rebut these contentions complainant did not produce counterfoil of service coupon which was provided by the 2^nd opposite party along with owner’s manual to the complainant at the time of purchase before the Forum. In the above circumstances we cannot discard the contentions taken the opposite parties.   More over the complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove the vehicle has manufacturing defect. Expert Commissioner filed interim report stating that the vehicle was not available for inspection. It is the duty of the complainant to produce the vehicle before the expert commissioner for examination.

It is the settled legal position that complainant has to prove the manufacturing defects of the vehicle which were occurred during the warranty period. In the present case complainant is failed to prove his case.

Hence complaint dismissed without cost.  

            Pronounced in the open court on this the  30^th day of August  2017.

                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                Shiny.P.R                                                                                 

                       President

 Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P

                       Member

Sd/-

          V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                        Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Commissioner Report

Ext.C1   - Interim Commission report Dated. 18.12.2013

Cost    

Nil