Before the District consumer Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday 22nd day of December, 2003
C.D.No.96/2002
M.Nagaraju,
S/o. Late M. Neelakantappa,
D.No. 1/682, H.B.S Colony, Yemmiganur,
. . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad.
-Vs-
1.Y.Y.Yadav, Area Manager,
Kinetic Engineering Ltd.,
R/o, 1-2-593/5, Gagan Mahal Colony,
Domalaguda, Hyderabad.
2. Sri Durga Automotives,
D/o. 50-700 A114, Gooty Road,
Kurnool.
3. Kinetic Engineering Ltd.,
D-1 Block, Plot No.18/2, Chinchuvadu, Pune.
... Opposite party No.2 represented by
his Counsel Sri K.Kapileswaraiah.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under section 12 of the C.P.Act seeking an award on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.26.395/- with interest at 24 percent P.A Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and the incidental expenses for return of the post dated cheques and such other relief which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 22.04.2001 he purchased kinetic challenger motor cycle form Sri. Durga Automotive, Kurnool (O.P NO.2) and its engine and chassis No. are C.C 50015218 and CC 50014530. Respectively and the said purchase was under a higher purchase agreement and as per the terms and conditions the complainant made a down payment of Rs.10,400/- agreeing to pay the balance in 20 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2285/- per month and issued post dated cheques to the opposite party No.2 from May,2001 to November, 2001 at the rate of Rs.2285/- per month, The said Motor Cycle supplied by the opposite party NO.2 as was suffering with mechanical defects several times were taken to the opposite party No.2 and they were not properly rectified inspite of several requests and the said vehicle on account of its mechanical manufacturing defect is giving troubles in functioning. The complainant issued notice date 06.12.2001 and pursuance of the said notice the opposite party No.1 took delivery of the complainant’s vehicle assuring its delivery after rectifying it is defects and putting in good running condition, but the said promise was not kept up and the vehicle of the complainant kept idle without any proper care and hence neciciated the complainant to resort to the forum at the conduct of the opposite parties.
3. In pursuance the notice of this forum as to this case the opposite parties 1 and 3 filed its written version denying its liability and the cause of action of the complainant expressing its readiness to get inspected the vehicle of the complainant expressing its readiness to get inspected the vehicle of the complainant thoroughly by its competent service engineer and to attend any required repairs of the complainant. It denies any its liability to the claim of the complainant as not covered under terms and conditions of purchase and warranty. It denies the allegation of the complainant that the defect in the vehicle were not properly attended by the opposite party and on the other hand suffests their attendance properly and the delivery of the vehicle on the satisfactory of the customer. It lastly submits the complainant to comply with the terms and conditions and the obligations of the finance agreement under which it was purchased by paying the balance installments and receiving the vehicle back. As the approach of the complainant being not with clean hand seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The opposite party NO.2 did not file any written version and contested the case.
5. While the complainant side relied upon the documentary record inEx.A1 to Ex.A3 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of the complaint averments besides to 3rd party affidavit of G.Raghu an alleged Mechanic, the opposite parties placed several Xerox documents as to the terms and conditions of the warranty job card dt.20.02.2002, 08.09.2001, 23.11.2001 and the letters dt.12.03.2002, 01.04.2002, addressed by the opposite party to the complainant and the two postal acknowledgements and a statement copy of the finance company dt.12.08.2003 and the attested copies of cheques six in No. the originals of which were said to have been issued by the complainant without any sworn affidavit in their support.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the defects in the vehicle as required under the law and to feel any deficient conduct on the part of the opposite parties to the entitle him to the relief sought.
7. The complainant doesn’t envisage as to the actual defect in the said vehicle except saying vaguely as mechanical defects. The legal notice dt.06.12.2001 in caused on the opposite parties also doesn’t envisage the actual kind of defection the vehicle except alleging vaguely not running smoothly and giving trouble often. The sworn affidavit of complainant also doesn’t clarity the nature of the said defect exception alleging vaguely a manufacturing and mechanical defects and complaining the low consumption of the petrol and trouble in the gear box. The Xerox of the job cards filed by the opposite parties shows the complainant were duly attended. The complainant except alleging the vehicle is suffering with the manufacturing defect did not made any Endeavour to get tested the said Motor Cycle as contemplated under 13(1) ( c) of the C.P Act and as offered by the opposite party for its testing by approved authorities to feel either the defects already attended were manufacturing defect. The 3rd party affidavit of G.Raghu alleged Mechanic is not remaining sufficient to hold in the observations with any authority as he is not a qualified technical one with any qualifications and merely basing on his feelings on so called experienced which is not even having any cogent proof.
8. Further from the complainant own admission the said vehicle is under hire-purchase and he paid a part from down payment of Rs.10,400/- form the monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2285/- from May, 2001 to November, 2001 as against the 20 monthly installments under which the balance of cost of the vehicle was agreed to be paid. When the opposite paryt is alleging the complainant is due of further installments and there being no proof from the complainant side as it is total payment of the cost of the said vehicle he has not became the full fledged owner of the said vehicle even to claim any relief as any deprived owner.
- As the complainant has not taken any edeavor to prove the defect of the vehicle by submitting it to the test and analysis of any approved laboratory the conduct of the complainant in filing this case doesn’t appear to be with any justified bonafiedies and on the other hand appear to be an effort to come across the consequences of his default of paying further residuary balance of the cost of the vehicle.
- As the defect alleged by the complainant in the vehicle is being not substantiated by the complainant as contemplated under Sec.13 (1) ( c) C.P.Act being obligated statutorily, as such as the forum is to determined the fact as to the defects in the goods on the basis of clear evidence by way of expert opinion as per the decision of the National commission in Sabina Cycle Emporium Chennakada V/s Thajis Ravi M.R. Panchavilla Vendor Ezkhone reported in 1992 (1) C.P.J 97 the case of the complainant remains devoid of merit and force and his entitle ness for any relief sought.
- Consequently, in the result of the above discussion the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the open court, this the 22nd Day of December, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Receipt issued by Sri Durga Automotives Vehicle NO.AP 21 E805 dt. 20.02.2002 J.C No.775,
Ex.A2 Reply notice dt.21.12.2001 issued by opposite parties counsel to the complainants counsel.
Ex.A3 Legal notice issued by the complainants counsel to the Opposite parties.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
-NIL-
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
