V.K.Beerankutty V/S M/s.Kinetic Engineering Ltd,D 1,Block,Plot No.18/2 MIDC,Chinchwad,Pune - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

359/2007

M/s.Kinetic Engineering Ltd,D 1,Block,Plot No.18/2 MIDC,Chinchwad,Pune - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.K.Beerankutty - Opp.Party(s)

Narayan.R

21 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. 359/2007

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. 231/2000 of District Malappuram)

1. M/s.Kinetic Engineering Ltd,D 1,Block,Plot No.18/2 MIDC,Chinchwad,Pune

Rep.by Service Engineer,K.P.Vijayakumar,Kinetic Engineering Ltd,Penta Towers,Kaloor,Cochin

BEFORE:
	SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 359/2007

JUDGMENT DATED: 21.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

M/s Kinetic Engineering Limited. : APPELLANT

D-1, Block, Plot No.18/2 MIDC,

Chinchwad, Pune-411 019,

Rep. by its Service Engineer,

K.P.Vijayakumar. Service Engineer,

Kinetic Engineeirng Limited,

Room No.1, 1^st Floor, Penta Towers,

Opp. Kaloor Bus Stand, Kaloor, Cochin.

(By Adv.Narayan.R)

Vs.

1. V.K.Beerankutty, S/o Moideen Haji, : RESPONDENTS

Polissery.P.O.,(Via) B.P.Angadi,

Malappuram – 676 102.

(By Adv.C.M.Stephen)

2. P.Venugopan,

Manager, Reliance Motors,

Pookkayil.P.O.,

Tirur -7.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The order dated 30.8.2007 in OP 231/2000 of CDRF, Malappuram is being assailed in this appeal by the 2^nd opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum to the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.37567/- within a period of 3 weeks from the date of order with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase till payment with cost of Rs.3000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case as revealed from the complaint are as follows: The complainant has purchased a Kynetic 2 wheeler(scooter) from the 1^st opposite party on 10.2.2000 for a price of Rs.37567/- and that after purchase of the vehicle the engine was not working properly and that there was no pulling and also that the vehicle failed to pull up and carry a pillion rider and also that there were other defects to the vehicle. Though the 1^st opposite party was informed of the defects it was assured that the defects to be rectified within a few days and that inspite of repeated repairs the vehicle did not improve and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or refund the amount paid.

3. The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the vehicle but contending that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and hence the complainant was not a consumer. It was denied that the vehicle had any manufacturing defects and that the defects if any are caused only because the complainant failed to maintain the vehicle properly and the complaint was failed without any bonafides. The 2^nd opposite party also filed separate version supporting the contentions of the 1^st opposite party.

4. The evidence consisted of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant as Exts.P1 and P2. The Service Engineer of the opposite parties was examined as DW1; Exts.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. The commission report obtained in the case was marked as Ext.C1.

5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to refund the price when there was no finding to effect that there was manufacturing defect for the vehicle. It is his very case that an objection was filed against the commission report and the Forum did not consider the same and the order was passed believing the case of the complainant in toto. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the complainant had not adduced any oral evidence and the finding of the Forum that complainant being a layman need not enter the box to give evidence can not be accepted. He has also invited our attention to Ext.C1 report wherein the commissioner has not stated that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect. It is his further case that the vehicle was being used by the complainant for all these years from the date of purchase and a direction to refund the price after a period of 7 ½ years from the date of purchase is unjustifiable especially when the complainant was using the vehicle for all these years. Thus the learned counsel argued for allowing the appeal thereby dismissing the complaint in toto.

6. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is argued by him that the complainant was given a 1999 model vehicle when it was purchased on 10.2.2000. It is also his case that the complaint was filed on 25.7.2000 and the date of purchase was on 10.2.2000 which would show that the complainant had no other go but to approach the Forum for the redressal of his grievances regarding the defects of the vehicle. It is also submitted by him that the commissioner has pointed out so many defects in the vehicle which would indicate that the vehicle had manufacturing defects though the words manufacturing defects were not used by the commissioner. Inviting our attention to Ext.C1 report he argued for the point that the vehicle had so many defects even after all the services were over and also that so many repairs were done on the vehicle and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with compensatory costs.

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of the all the parties that the complainant had purchased the disputed vehicle on 10.2.2000 and the complaint was filed on 25.7.2000. Then the appellant would argue that the commission report is obtained in April 2001 ie after a period of more than one year from the date of purchase. We find that it can not be termed as a long gap between the date of purchase and the date of inspection. We have gone through the commission report in detail. The commissioner has pointed out 9 defects for the vehicle of which certain defects are not that minor or negligible. It is also found that certain functionings of the vehicle are found good and the commissioner has not stated that vehicle had manufacturing defects though he would say that there are so many defects in the vehicle. Though the opposite party/appellant would argue that he had filed an objection to the commission report no steps were seen taken by the opposite parties to examine the commissioner and get the commission report set aside. In the backdrop of the above facts, we find that the commission report can be accepted to a great extent. However it is to be found that the complainant had been using the vehicle for all these years from the date of purchase and in such a situation a direction for refund or replacement of the vehicle as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant can not be accepted as it will be too heavy on the manufacturer to replace a vehicle after a lapse of 10 years. However it is also to be found that vehicle had defects and the complainant had to be compensated on this score. We feel that an order to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation to the complainant will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstance of the case. The opposite parties including the appellant are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- with cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant/respondent within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are left to bear their own costs.