State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A. Bahuleyan Nair, Althara Veedu, vs Deedi Authomobiles, on 27 August, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/231 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/06/2010 in Case No. CC/03/105 of District Thiruvananthapuram) 1. A.Bahuleyan nair Althara Veedu,Aruvikkuzhi,Veeranakavu,Kattakkada,Trivandrum Trivandrum Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Deedi Automobiles Kaimanam,Trivandrum Trivandrum Kerala 2. Bajaj Auto Limited Akurdi,Pune ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.231/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 27.08.2012
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
A. Bahuleyan Nair, Althara Veedu,
Aruvikkuzhi, Veeranakavu P.O.,
Kattakkada, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANT
(By Advs. K.P. Renadive & D. Padmini Rose)
Vs
1. Deedi Authomobiles,
Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Bajaj Auto Limited,
Akurdi, Pune - 35. : RESPONDENTS
(R1 by Advs. S. Ajith and Others)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant dissatisfied with the order of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP. 105/03.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj 4 stroke Autorikshaw, on 26.09.2000 for an amount of Rs.70,499/- with six months warranty. It is also stated in the complaint that the 1st opposite party assured more mileage than the 3 stroke autorikshaw which was not found in due course of time. It is also the allegation of the complainant that the condition of the vehicle became very poor and had undergone repairs several times and the spare parts were also not available in the open market. Even after repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties did not rectify the defects of the vehicle, and the complainant was constrained to file a complaint before the Forum below to get the defects of the vehicle rectified and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed version and admitted the purchase of vehicle and also stated that they have provided 120 days warranty for the vehicle. There is no basis for the allegation of the complainant that the 1st opposite party had not rectified the defects. It is also the contention that the opposite parties repaired the defects and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6, no oral evidence on the part of the opposite parties. Commissioner was examined as CW1 and Commission report marked as C1.
5. When this appeal came up for hearing the counsel for the appellant submitted that there were some settlement talks between the 1st respondent and the complainant. As the settlement was not arrived yet, the case was taken up for hearing. No representation on the part of the respondents. The earning from autorikshaw was the only source of income of the complainant's livelihood. The counsel pointed out that as per the Commission report there is manufacturing defect. This was not considered by the Forum below and dismissed the complaint. The vehicle was purchased on 26.09.2000 and complainant had to approach the 1st opposite party and some defects were rectified by the 1st opposite party and thereafter he had to take the vehicle to other Automobiles as the 1st opposite party could not rectify the defects. It is clearly evident from the C1 report. C1 report states that :-
Conclusion 1 :- The battery specified for the vehicle is 12V, 14 AH, which is not adequate for the vehicle- for frequent electric start. A High Power battery - 12V, 32 AH is required for better electric start. This is a design/manufacturing defect.
Conclusion 4 :- Normally a 173.5 CC 4 stroke petrol engine is inadequate for a three-wheeler. Minimum 200 to 250 CC 4 stroke engine is required to meet the requirement. A 175 CC 4 stroke engine develops more heat and may cause higher oil consumption. This is a design/manufacturing defect. Hence prayed to allow the appeal.
6. On hearing the counsel for the appellant and on perusal of documents, it is clear that the complaint was filed in the year 2003 and the complainant had to take the vehicle several times for repair which caused financial loss and mental agony. He also could not repay the loan taken from the bank to purchase the vehicle. Further as per the Commission report it clearly stated that the battery provided was not adequate which is the main crux of the manufacturing defect and this was not cured by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. It is the settled law that when a manufacturing defect is pointed out, the manufacturer is to rectify that defect or replace that part. The vehicle had recurring defect. It was the prime duty of the 1st respondent to find out the defect properly and even after several years the service was not extended to the complainant properly.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Hence we are of the view that the 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant/complainant within one month on receipt of the order, failing which the appellant/complainant is also entitled to recover interest @9% till realization.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
Da