D.O.F:20/01/2022
D.O.O:31/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.14/2022
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Sunil Kumar Acharya,
S/o Kunhiraman Acharya,
Adrukuzhi House,
Edneer, Kasaragod. : Complainant
(Adv: Mamatha.D)
And
Zain Motors,
Near Chandragiri Bridge,
Kasaragod. : Opposite Party
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Bajaj Qute vehicle from Opposite Party in the year 2019. Later registered with RTO with registration No: KL – 14 Y 4430. He purchased the vehicle for eaking his lively hood.
After 5 months of Purchasing of the vehicle it developed so many defects mainly overheating, suddenly stopping. On each time he approached Opposite party for repairs he paid service charges the vehicle kept for repairs for long period by which complainant suffered huge financial loss.
The complainant alleges that opposite Party delivered the vehicle having manufacturing defect. Due to that complainant suffered mental tension financial loss and complainant says that he had lost more than Rs. 3,50,000/-. The complainant claim Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation.
For opposite party Adv:Babuchandran filed vakalath and version. The case of Opposite party is that complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission.
The opposite party admits that complainant purchased the vehicle in dispute from their showroom in the year 2019. The Opposite Party denies that complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair due to manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party denies any manufacturing defect to the vehicle supplied by them.
The Opposite parties case is that the vehicle met a major road traffic accident, on 12/08/2021 due to that vehicle totally damaged. The repair work done and complainant claimed the insurance benefit. Thereafter complainant brought the vehicle to service centre four times and paid the repair charges without objection. The vehicle is till in the custody of complainant and he is plying the vehicle as taxi and earning income, there is no deficiency in service from Opposite party; and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined by Opposite Party as Pw1, Ext A1 to A3 marked. The complainant filed IA 363/2022 to appoint an expert Commission. Report filed and marked as Ext C1, Ext A1 series Tax invoice, Ext A2 Driving license from Maharashtra, Ext A3 driving license from Kerala.
The issues raised for consideration in the case is.
- Whether complaint is maintainable before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?
- Whether the vehicle in dispute having and manufacturing defect?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what relief?
All the issues are discussed together for convenience.
The complainant and opposite party admits that the vehicle purchased from Opposite party’s showroom and the vehicle is used for eaking livelihood. Therefore complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Commission.
That the complainant admits that the vehicle met with a road traffic accident on 12/08/2021 and received insurance claim. Expert commission filed report as per the order in IA 353/22 which is marked as Ext C1. The complainant has not filed any objections to the C1 report. In the report there is no reference that vehicle having any manufacturing defect. The problem for vehicle is it is putting off while starting and it is having lack of clutch play vehicle already covered 112500 kilometers within three years and three months. Engine oil consumption is more. He admits vehicle serviced from unauthorized service centers also.
Here is a case that vehicle is purchased in the year 2019. Manufacturing defect alleged only in 2022. Expert opinion also ruled out any manufacturing defect.
The complainants grievance is that every month he is compelled to approach service centre for repairs. Ext A1 series shows during 2020 October 2021 and during December 2021 and in 2022 also vehicle is kept for repairs for long days Opposite Party collected repair charges.
Considering the fact that the vehicle is taken to the workshop for so many days for repair and kept in the workshop and the complainant has spent a lot from the very beginning after purchase of the vehicle the complainant suffered so much mental tension and agony he is entitled for compensation.
The complainant having spent so much money for buying the vehicle but constrained to take the vehicle to the dealer workshop and wait for days to set back, and considering the nature and circumstances of the case and continuous days keeping the vehicle for repair and also taking note of amount spent for service a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is found reasonable compensation besides payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing to Opposite party pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Series, Tax invoice.
A2- Driving license of the complainant issued by state of Kerala.
A3- Driving license of the complainant issued by Maharashtra state.
C1- Expert Commission Report.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sunil Kumar Acharya.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
