State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sarathy Bajaj And Another vs Radhakrishnan on 25 May, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.505/13 JUDGMENT DTD:25.05.15 (Filed against the order in CC No.36/11 on the file of CDRF,Kollam, dtd.08/07/13) PRESENT SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANT M/s. Sarathy Bajaj, Sarathy Motors, Pallimukku, Vadakkevila P.O., Kollam - 691010 M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akkurdi, Pune, Maharashtra - 411035 (Adv. Sri. Rajmohan C.S) Vs. RESPONDENT Radhakrishnan, S/o. Sreenivasan, 587, Jayanthi Colony, Kureeppally, Trikkovilvattom, Kollam. JUDGMENT
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.13 in CC No.36/11, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed an order against the opposite parties (now 1st and 2nd appellants)
2. Brief facts are the respondent on 18/10/2010 purchased a Bajaj rear Engineer auto rickshaw bearing registration no.KL-2/AF 4888 from the appellant for a total amount of Rs.1,16,250/-. During the initial days itself the respondent's noticed some problem with the vehicle such as regarding to its fuel efficiency which was detected as 15 Km / Ltr in place of the announced 32 Km / Ltr and low pick up whereby the respondent had to alight passengers at steep roads. The respondent purchased the vehicle by borrowing money from different people in order to look after his livelihood. The vehicle was given to the appellants to rectify the issues and in spite of several rectifications no defects were cured. On 22/11/2010 the respondent gave the vehicle to the appellant workshop and later demanded an exchange for a new vehicle with the manager. On 10/12/2010 appellant sent a letter dating 09/11/2010 to the respondent stating all the repairs have been done and requested him to collect his vehicle. Believing the contents of the letter that the defects of the vehicle were cured, the respondent reached the workshop and on driving the vehicle he noticed that no defects were cured by the appellants. Thus he gave the custody of the vehicle to the appellants and hence approached the Lower Forum citing the appellants act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The appellants oppose all the allegations and states there is no such defect in the vehicle. The allegation to the effect that the vehicle is having a lesser fuel efficiency of 15 Kms / Ltr than the offered fuel efficiency of 32 Km / Ltr is also false, as during their inspection the vehicle fuel efficiency is of 29 Km / Ltr after its first service. Appellants stated duel efficiency depends upon different factors like purity of the fuel, condition of the road, number of passengers in the vehicle, efficiency and habit of the driver etc. The allegation that the vehicle had low pickup was also denied by the appellants. The appellants raised the contention that twice the vehicle was attended and it was properly serviced and hence the vehicle is of perfect condition. The appellants also stated thereafter the carburetor of the vehicle was replaced under warranty. There is no fault or deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The Ld. Lower Forum based on the evidence and expert opinion provided by the expert commission who was appointed by the Ld. Lower Forum stated that based on the entire evidence Ld. Lower Forum are of the opinion that the vehicle sold to the complainant is a defective one and thus the appellants have committed unfair trade practice. Ld. Forum also noticed that from PW2 in Ext.C1 report that the defect on the vehicle was not rectified till the date of inspection i.e. on 18/5/2011 whereby showing gross deficiency. The Ld. Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,16,250/- the value of autorikshaw with 9 percentage interest from the date of complaint 24/1/2011 till the date of realization of the amount. Appellants were further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of this proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount Rs.1,16,250/- will carry percentage interest. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. We have perused the expert report. As well pointed out by the Ld. Lower Forum there had been no objection or concern raised by the appellants in the Lower Forum against the expert commission being appointed. In accordance to the report it clearly states "the vehicle KL 02 AF-4888 Bajaj autorikshaw having a major manufacturing defect in the engine body, cylinder kit or elsewhere in the engine. It can be repaired by replacing the cylinder head and the cylinder kit. There is a chance to wrapping in the cylinder head. The remedy is to replace the head with proper care and supervision which otherwise the same snag may reterated." By these words it could be understood that the expert opinion clearly reveals there had been a manufacture defect which could had been clearly rectified by the appellants. The respondent had approached the appellants raising the problem his vehicle was facing and with a devoted customer service if appellant would have approached the respondent complaint, this case would have never been occurred on the first place. The contention of the respondent that there was manufacturing defect, therefore, has been proceed from the materials on record.
4. The fact remains that the vehicle was sent to the service centre several times and necessary repairs were made. The respondent took release of the vehicle but still the vehicle remained with same defects. However the averments regarding the mileage were not sufficiently proved and remain unwarranted. Considering that the respondent completely rely on driving autorickshaw for his day to day means, we do not see any valid reason to stand against the order passed by the Ld. Lower Forum. The appellant had failed to raise any valid averments or evidences and is devoid of merits.
In the result and view of the fact that appellants have not adduced any evidence to rebut the case of the respondent we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER nb