National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V. Rajendran Nair vs The Managing Director Tata Engineering ... on 5 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 31.07.2008 in Complaint Case No.47/2002 of the State Commission, Kerala) V.Rajendran Nair Chandramangalam House, Kaithakkonam, Kattakkada, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala ..Appellant Versus 1. The Managing Director, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Ltd., (TELCO), Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Local Manager, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Ltd., (TELCO), Kandankulathil Towers, 4th Floor, M.G. Road, Cochin-682 011 3. M/s. Malabar Automobiles (P) Ltd. Road, Palarivattom, Kochi- 652 025 .....Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Shyam Padman, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate & Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 05-9-2013 ORDER
PER MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER In OP No.47 of 2002, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellant. It has held that the Complainant has failed to establish the case set up by him.
Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, Complainant Shri V.Rajendran Nair has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
2. The case of the Complainant before the State Commission related to alleged manufacturing defects in a Tata Lorry purchased by him on 31.3.1999. According to him, the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects in several areas including the braking system, electric fittings and the pulling power. Having failed to obtain satisfactory rectification of the alleged defects, the Complainant first issued a legal notice in February, 2002 and then followed it up with a consumer complaint in June, 2002. It made the following prayer:-
(A) The opposite parties be directed to give the purchase price of Rs.5,15,711/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase (31-3-1999) till realisation.
(B) The opposite parties be directed to give Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint as compensation for the cost of spare parts and for mental agony sustained.
(C) The complainant be allowed such other reliefs which are deemed proper and fit during the course of trial such as cost.
3. Per contra, the contention of OPs -1 and 2 (the Manufactures of the vehicle) was that the Complaint had been filed after over three years of use of the vehicle and was therefore, barred by limitation.
The vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defects and problems like breaking of bearing were result of reckless driving or overloading. It was also contended that the vehicle had a warranty of 18 months or 1.5 lakh km., whichever was earlier.
4. The State Commission appointed Shri Vijaykumaran Nair Ex-Chief Engineer, Government of Kerala as the expert, and considered his detailed report together with objections of OPs to the findings therein and other evidence. The conclusion reached by the State Commission can be briefly listed as:
a) By the time the consumer complaint was filed, the vehicle had been used for over three years. According to the Complainant, it was used for the purposes of the business of the Hollow Bricks Manufacturing Unit of the complainant.
b) Admittedly, defects have been rectified by the OPs, till the end of the warranty period.
c) Most of the bills produced on behalf of the Complainant are with respect of purchase of lubricants. One bill was also for purchase of jack lever.
d) The Complainant did not produce the log book of the vehicle. However, at the time of inspection by the Commissioner on 3.5.2004 the odometer reading was 45838.
e) The claim of the Complainant that the vehicle was mostly in garage was not substantiated by examining the concerned mechanic or workshop owner.
5. Mr. Shyam Padman, Advocate, counsel for the Appellant/Complainant argued before us that the crown and pinion of the vehicle had been replaced twice first in October, 1999 and later in September 2000. This, according to the learned counsel, would by itself establish that the vehicle sold to the Complainant had suffered from manufacturing defects which were not open to repair and rectification. We do not agree. As for the claim that the vehicle was of a failed model which had to be later discontinued by the manufacturer, it needs to be noted that, before the State Commission, no supporting evidence was led to prove this contention.
6. The memorandum of appeal has challenged the finding of the State Commission that no evidence was produced to show that the Complainant ever approached the OPs with complaints of manufacturing defects, except in the legal notice of 12.2.2002. However, neither the appeal memorandum nor the arguments of the counsel go beyond mentioning the replacement of the crown and pinion assembly.
Moreover, most bills produced before the State Commission related to the purchase of lubricants only. Thus evidently, the complaint before the State Commission with prayer for refund of the purchase price, together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, has failed to substantiate the case of the Complainant. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the State Commission that the Complainant has failed to establish the case set up by him.
7. In the light of the examination of the above, we hold that the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of merit. No orders as to costs.
...Sd/-.
(VINEETA RAI) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-