State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Force Motors Pvt Tltd vs Sindhu on 3 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/15/77
M/S FORCE MOTORS PVT TLTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - AKURDI, PUNE ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
SINDHU
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO 621,VELIYIL VEEDU, THEKKEVILA, ERAVIPURAM,
KOLLAM ,KERALA.
M/S ESSCO AUTO MOBILES
PRESENT ADDRESS - KANIIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLUR , KOLLAM ,KERALA.
THE MANAGER VEMBANAD FORCE
PRESENT ADDRESS - SHIVAGIRI TOWERS, VELLAITTAMBALAM, KAVANAD P.O, KOLLAM
,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 03/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.77/2015 JUDGEMENT DATED: 03.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.53/2008 on the files of DCDRC, Kollam) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:
M/s Force Motors Ltd. (A firodia Enterprise), Mumbai - Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune, represented by its Manager, Mahesh Bose (by Adv. R.S. Kalkura & G.S. Kalkura) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Sindhu, D/o Pavithran, House No.621, Veliyil Veedu, Thekkevila, Eravipuram, Kollam (by Adv. Kishore P.)
2. M/s Essco Automobiles, Kannimel Cherry, Kilikolloor P.O., Kollam -
691 004
3. The Manager, Vembanad Force, Shivagiri Towers, Vellayaittambalam, Kavanad P.O., Kollam JUDGEMENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER The 1st opposite party in C.C.No.53/2008 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (the District Commission for short) is the appellant.
2. On 06.04.2006 the complainant had purchased one Minidor CB (SLC) pick up autorikshaw manufactured by the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,91,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand only). The purchase was effected from the 2nd opposite party who was the authorised dealer of the 1st opposite party. At the time of delivery of the vehicle itself, the odometer showed 1500kms.When it was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, it was stated that the vehicle was driven from the manufacturing unit at Pune to the 2nd opposite party by road and that is why the reading was shown as 1500km. From the first day itself, black fumes came out of the exhaust pipe.
3. The 2nd opposite party had advised the complainant to change the engine oil next week. From the date of delivery of the vehicle itself it showed complaints of low pick- up of the engine, low rate of mileage. As suggested by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant had changed the engine oil, but even after changing the engine oil, black fumes came out through the exhaust pipe and the pulling of the engine was very poor. The complainant used to carry out the services as directed by the 2nd opposite party but low pulling, coming black fumes, stoppage of engine while running and low mileage problems of the vehicle persisted.
4. The 2nd opposite party used to collect huge amount from the complainant even at the time of free service. After relinquishing the dealership of the 2nd opposite party, the 1 st opposite party had given the dealership to the 3rd opposite party. When the complainant had taken the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party, an estimate of Rs.16,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) was issued for repairing the vehicle. Though the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 06.04.2006, he was not able to use the vehicle for his purpose as the vehicle was suffering with several defects. Those defects occurred on account of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and also due to the negligent acts of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
5. The 1st opposite party had filed written version conceding that they are the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. They would also concede that the 2nd opposite party was their dealer. According to them, the existing dealer is the 3rd opposite party. They added that the relationship between the dealer and the manufacturer was on a principal to principal basis. The complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose and hence is not a consumer. They would deny the contention of the complainant that at the time of delivery, black fumes came out of the exhaust pipe and no complaint has been received about the vehicle from the complainant. The allegation that the vehicle had run 1500km at the time of delivery, is not the concern of the manufacturer. It is the dealer who used to arrange the transportation of the vehicle to their location. During the warranty period, the 2 nd opposite party had attended the vehicle and carried out the necessary repairs and replaced the parts free of cost. The repairs sought to be carried out on 15.02.2007 is beyond the warranty period, since the warranty has expired on 07.10.2006. The vehicle had no manufacturing defect. So the 1st opposite party had sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The 2nd opposite party had contended that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complainant is not a consumer. They denied the allegation that on the date of delivery itself, black fumes came out from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle. There was no complaints from the complainant as the low mileage or other issues now alleged in the complaint.
7. The complainant never brought the vehicle for prompt service. The 2nd opposite party never collected huge amounts from the complainant at the time of service. The 2nd opposite party had rectified all the complaints mentioned by the complainant and endorsement was obtained from the complainant or her agent in the job order. The 2nd opposite party is not at all liable for any manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party had done their job well by rendering service. The defects, if any, occurred is due to the rash and careless use of the vehicle. They had also sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. The 3rd opposite party had filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. They would admit that they are the dealers of the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was brought to the 3rd opposite party by the complainant with complaint of engine pulling and other defects. A job card was issued and estimate bill to the complainant. But the complainant wanted the repair to be done free of cost. The request could not be fulfilled, since the warranty period was over. But the complainant was not willing to repair the vehicle as per the estimate bill. The 3rd opposite party had requested the complainant to take back the vehicle but he never take back the vehicle. They would also seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. On the side of the complainant PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P4 were also marked. On the side of the opposite parties, DW1 was examined. The report filed by the expert is marked as Exhibit C1. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, the complaint was allowed in part directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation and the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.
10. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Perused the records.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no liability could be fastened on the appellant on the reason that no manufacturing defects stand established. The manufacturer could be held liable only in case manufacturing defect is proved. So the appellant would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission. An expert was deputed by the District Commission who had filed a report which is marked as Exhibit C1. The expert was unable to drive the vehicle as the vehicle was lying in the 3rd opposite party's workshop in a dismantled condition. On inspection, the expert would notice that the flywheel side crank case was seen as welded. A ridge was also seen in the cylinder wheel. Piston rings have excessive axial play. The expert noticed these two defects as the reason for excessive smoke and excessive fuel consumption. But the expert was unable to assess the actual fuel consumption as the vehicle could not be driven. Once overhauling is effected, the defects may disappear.
12. The expert was also examined before the District Commission as PW4. During the examination, the expert had testified that the piston was burnt due to manufacturing defect. He also added that the loss of lubrication may also be a reason for the burning of the piston. So there is no expert evidence to establish manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The expert had also noticed welding in the crank. The vehicle was brought to the workshop from the actual possession of the complainant. It is up to the complainant to speak as to how a welding occurred to the crank. The complainant had no case that any welding work was done to the crank by the second or third opposite parties. There is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. As long as the manufacturing defect is not established, manufacturer cannot be held liable. There is also substance in the contention raised by the appellant that the defect occurred on account of the improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant.
13. The evidence of the expert would also indicate that burning of the piston may occur if the vehicle is put in to use without applying proper quantity of oil. On an overall evaluation of the evidence on record, we find that the District Commission was not correct in fastening the liability on the 1st opposite party. So the order passed by the District Commission imposing liability on the 1st opposite party is found unsustainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order fastening liability on the appellant is set aside. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT
KUMAR
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
SL
..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D
JUDICIAL MEMBER