D.o.F:19/4/11

D.o.O:12/9/12

 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                             CC.No.86 /2011

                        Dated this, the 12th  day of September 2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT.RAMADEVI.P                       : MEMBER   

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Kusha Kumar, S/o Kogga,

R/at Rathnagiri House, Neerchal Po         : Complainant

Via kumbla,Kasaragod.

(Adv.Rajesh,Kasaragod)

1.Zain Motors, Zain Arcade,

 Near Chandragiri Bridge, Kasaragod.

2. Anwar, Sales Executive,Zain Motors,

Zain Arcade, Near Chandragiri Bridge, Kasaragod

3. Murali Nair, General Manager                         : Opposite parties              

Zain Motors, Zain Arcade,

Near Chandragiri Bridge, Kasaragod.

4. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Rep by its Area Manager(service)

Bajaj Auto Ltd, 4^th Floor, Manjooran Estate,

Cheranalloor Road, By Pass junction,

Edapally, Kochi.

(Ops 1 to 4 Adv.Babuchandran,Kasaragod)

                                                 ORDER

SMT.RAMADEVI.P    : MEMBER   

       The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant purchased an autorikshaw, the Bajaj RE 145 D at the instigation of Opposite parties 1 to 3 as per the SC/St welfare Scheme.  He purchased the vehicle on 30/8/2010 and the vehicle is given for ist service on 26/10/10 and on that occasion the piston and rigs of the engine was replaced.  Then on 16/11/2010 the  chassis of the vehicle seen cut and damaged and same is replaced  by the opposite parties without fixing  the chassis number.  Then Ist March 2011 the chassis of the vehicle again broken while plying the vehicle with passengers.  The complainant entrusted the  vehicle with the opposite parties and  the opposite parties agreed to  weld the chassis and repair the vehicle.  But the opposite parties failed to replace the chassis and to repair the vehicle.  The complainant suffered heavy loss by keeping the vehicle with the opposite parties.  The complainant himself  driving the vehicle for his livelihood.  Hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.

2.       The opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their version.   Ops 1 to 3 filed joint version and 4^th opposite parties also adopted  the same version by filing a memo.

      In the version the opposite parties admitted the purchase of vehicle and the service rendered by them.  The opposite parties admits that on 26/10/2010 the  piston and rigs of the engine was replaced and chassis of the vehicle was replaced on 16/11/2010 and the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 for repairing the  chassis in March 1^st 2011.  The opposite parties further submit that the vehicle got damaged rash and negligent driving  and the complainant himself was not driving the vehicle.  The opposite parties submits that the vehicle was repaired free of cost.  The opposite party repaired the vehicle  entrusted by the complainant within a week and it is kept for delivery and the same was intimated to the complainant but he is not ready to take back the vehicle.  The complainant is demanding replacement of the vehicle.  According to the opposite parties since there is no manufacturing or any other mechanical defects the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of the vehicle.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant & PW2 witness  and Exts.A1 to A7 and complainant had taken out  an expert commission and the report is marked as Ext.C1.  Opposite parties have not  adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

4.    After considering the facts on records the following issues raised for  consideration.

  1.  Whether the vehicle has got any manufacturing defect?

2.       Whether the  complainant is entitled for  the reliefs sought for?

5.   The case of the complainant is that within 3 months of purchase of  autorikshaw the piston, rigs and chassis of the vehicle replaced.  Thereafter within 4 months of replacement of the chassis again it was damaged.  Then the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite parties for repairing the same.  But the opposite party did not replace the  chassis and rectify the mistake.  Now the complainant is seeking replacement of the vehicle.  According to  opposite party there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the same is not liable to be replaced.

6. To prove the case the complainant had taken out an expert commission and the report is marked as Ext.C1.  Ext.C1 report says that on inspection the commissioner found that the chassis of the vehicle  is replaced by the opposite parties and now the vehicle is in a running condition.  The commissioner also inspected the engine and mechanical parts and found satisfactory.  The commissioner also stated in his report that he conducted test ride along with complainant, PW2 and opposite parties and  reported that the present condition of the vehicle is satisfactory.  He has not found any defect.

7.   Considering all the above facts we cannot say any inherent manufacturing  defect on the vehicle.  There is no other evidence before the Forum to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  Usually the replacement of the vehicle is possible only when the vehicle has got   any manufacturing defect.  Here the  commissioner specifically stated that the vehicle is free from any defect at present.  Since  the vehicle has got no manufacturing defect the complainant is not entitled  for a replacement.

8.  But the  continuous defects on the vehicle at the  earliest stage of its  purchase shows that the parts of the vehicle has got some manufacturing defect.   we cannot  accept the  contention of the opposite parties that the defect is due to rash and negligent driving.  Here the complainant is entitled to get free service from opposite parties  for another period of one year.  Hence the opposite parties are directed to extent  the warranty from the date of taking delivery of the vehicle by the complainant to one year.  The complainant is directed to take back the repaired vehicle free of  costs from the opposite parties within one month of  date of receipt of copy of the order.  Both parties  will bear their respective costs.  Hence the complaint is disposed off as above.

Exts:

A1-Dt.13/7/10- copy of letter issued by  Karnataka Bank, Neerchal Br.

A2- copy of R.C

A3- Copy of permit

A4&A5- copy of job cards

A6-owners manual

A7-Job card receipt

C1-29/11/11- commission report

PW1-Kushakumar.N- complainant

PW2-K.Jayasheela- witness of complainant

MEMBER                            MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

eva