BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 10^th day of April 2017

Filed on : 23.02.2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No. 124/2016

Between

O R D E R

Smt.V.K. Beenakumari, Member.

1. A brief statement of facts of this case is as follows:

   The complainant Sri.Saji Antony is an Autorikshaw Driver by profession and he purchased one Petrol/LPG 3 WHLD Auto of the 1^st opposite party – M/s. TVS Motor Company, through their authorised dealer- the 2^nd opposite party to earn his livelihood as a means of self employment. The auto was purchased after availing loan from the 3^rd opposite party- Indian Overseas Bank, Muvattupuzha Branch. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 22.11.2011. The vehicle was serviced properly by

   the 2^nd opposite party till the middle of the year 2014 and the branch office of the 2^nd opposite party was closed all of a sudden in the middle of the year 2014 and the complainant was compelled to get the services at Aluva Service Center which was 60 kms away from the residence of the complainant and the Aluva Service Centre of the 2^nd opposite party neglected to give proper service to the vehicle and for the last 1½ year the complainant is depending on cooli works for his livelihood and he could not earn his livelihood from the subject vehicle due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as well as on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. The loan being a joint venture both the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are equally responsible to render service to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party – manufacturer is also duty bound to rectify the defects of the vehicle. In the circumstances stated above the complainant filed this case seeking directions from this Forum to the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects of the subject vehicle which is now kept in the residence of the complainant. It is submitted that if the vehicle is found not rectifiable, the 1^st opposite party-manufacturer may be directed to replace the defective vehicle with brand new vehicle. It is also prayed that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of this proceedings.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared through their Counsel without proper vakkalath on 13.06.2016 and they filed proper vakkalath on 01.08.2016 and they filed no version on their behalf. The 3^rd opposite party filed their version on 24.06.2016.

3. Version of the 3^rd opposite party.

   It is submitted that the 3^rd opposite party being a financier granted loan to the complainant to purchase the vehicle and insurance application was also processed through the bank and being the financier the 3^rd opposite party would pay the insurance premium and the complainant has so far paid Rs.82,019/- out of the loan amount of Rs.120,000/- and an amount of Rs.110,086/- is now outstanding against the complainant. The 3^rd opposite party is only to recover the loan arrears and the insure cover note is not an evidence to show that the loan transaction and insurance policy are out of a joint venture, both transactions are independent and separate. It is submitted that the 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party to the complaint and there is no cause of action against the 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

   Issue No. (i): Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

Issue No. (ii): Whether the complainant is entitled to get a replacement of the defective vehicle with a new one?

Issue No. (iii) : Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4. Evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1. The documentary evidences furnished by the complainant were marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. The opposite parties adduced no oral evidence or documentary evidence.

5. Issue No. (i)

Exbt.A1 is the certificate of Registration of the complainant's vehicle bearing Registration No. Exbt. A2 is the Motor vehicle insurance policy document. Exbt.A3 is the pass book issued by the 3^rd opposite party-Indian Overseas Bank to the complainant and Exbt.A4 owners Mannual issued to the complainant by M/s. Periyar Motors. Exbt.A1 to A4 do not prove that the complainant had entrusted his vehicle for service and there was deficiency in service on the part of the service centre and on verification of the Exbt.A4 owner's Mannual, it is evident that proper services were provided to the vehicle. No deficiency in service is proved by filing necessary evidences. In the circumstances, the 1^st issue is decided against the complainant.

Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, the question of consideration of the issues Nos. (ii) and (iii) does not arise and we decline to consider and decide those issues.

In the result, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of April 2017.

Sd/-Beena Kumari, V.K., Member

Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent.

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

By Hand

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits. : Nil

Depositions:

PW1: Saji Antony

......................