State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd., vs Sabu Mathew, on 6 January, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 180/2007 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Kozhikode) Automotive Marketing pvt ltd Vs. Sabu Mathew and Others BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR Member PRESENT: Dated : 06 Jan 2011 ORDER Disposed as Allowed in part
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Common order in Appeal Nos.180/07, 365/07 and 10/08
Judgment dated: 6.1.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL180/07
Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd., :APPELLANT
Pavangad, P.O.Puthiyangadi,
Calicut - 21.
Vs.
1. Sabu Mathew, : RESPONDENTS
S/o Mathew
residing at Kalarickal House,
Beemanady.P.O., Nileswar via,
Kasaragod District.
(By Adv.K.Murlidharan Nair)
2. M/ Eicher Motors Ltd.,
Regd.Office: Plot No.102:
Industrial AreaNo.1,
Pithambur District,
Dhar (M.P) 454775.
(By Adv.P.Sanjay)
APPEAL 365/07
Sabu Mathew, : APPELLANT
S/o Mathew
residing at Kalarickal House,
Beemanady.P.O., Nileswar via,
Kasaragod District.
(By Adv.K.Murlidharan Nair)
1. The Manager, : RESPONDENTS
Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd.,
Pavangad, P.O.Puthiyangadi,
Calicut - 21.
2. M/ Eicher Motors Ltd.,
Regd.Office: Plot No.102:
Industrial AreaNo.1,
Pithambur District,
Dhar (M.P) 454775
APPEAL 10/08
M/ Eicher Motors Ltd., : APPELLANT
Regd.Office: Plot No.102:
Industrial AreaNo.1,
Pithambur District,
Dhar (M.P) 454775
(By Adv.P.Raghunathan)
Vs.
1. Sabu Mathew, : RESPONDENTS
S/o Mathew
residing at Kalarickal House,
Beemanady.P.O., Nileswar via,
Kasaragod District.
2. Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd.,
Pavangad, P.O.Puthiyangadi,
Calicut - 21.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appeal 180/07 have filed by the dealer and Appeal 365/07 by the complainant and Appeal 10/08 by the manufacturer over the order in CC.131/05 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The appellant in A.180/07 is the 1st opposite party/dealer and the appellant in appeal 10/08 is the 2nd opposite party/manufacturer. The opposite parties/dealer and manufacturer are under orders to pay Rs.90000/- as compensation and Rs.10000/- as cost and that if the amount is not paid within one month the same is to carry interest at 12%.
2. The case of the complainant is with respect to the alleged manufacturing defect of the Eicher bus chasis purchased on 29.1.03. The chasis was purchased for a sum of Rs.6.4lakhs. He has allegedly spent in 2 lakhs for body building. According to him he had availed loan from the Kerala Transport Finance Corporation Ltd.. The vehicle was being plied in the route from Kanhangad to Konnakad. It is the contention that since the date of plying of the vehicle it was having frequent breakdowns and that he had take the vehicle to Kanuur wherein the authorized service centre is situated frequently. It is alleged that on the 5th day of starting the service itself complaints developed. He has narrated the dates on which the vehicle was taken to Kannur for repairs. He could not ply the vehicle on those days and till the entirely repairs are over and the vehicle is taken back from Kannur. According to the complainant around 40 times the vehicle was taken to Kannur for repairs. According to him he had to avail a further loan to continue the bus service. He has sought for directing the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and also has claimed Rs.20 lakhs as compensation.
The opposite parties have filed separate versions contending that the allegations are incorrect. It is also contended that every time the vehicle is taken for repairs during the warranty period no amount was charged for replacing the parts. It is further submitted that on 25.10.04 the vehicle taken the service centre it is found that rebuilding of the engine is necessary and that the complainant has been informed about it but no work orders were issued and hence the same was not carried out. On the other hand the complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.11.04 demanding Rs.15,90,300/-.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 DWS 1 and 2 Exts.A1 to A20 series and B1.
The counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has stressed the fact that no expert evidence has been adduced and hence there can be no finding as to the manufacturing defects. On the otherhand the counsel for the complainant has pointed out the vehicle has been taken for repairs to Kannur which is situated away from the place of the complainant ie. Kasargod about 40 times with a span of one year and 10 months. The same defects had to be repeatedly rectified. He has relied on Ext.A13 series.A19, and A20 series in support of the above contention. On examination of the above documents we find that repairs have been effected repeatedly with respect to the leaf and clutch. Further it has been admitted by the opposite parties that on 25.10.04 service Engineers of the opposite parties have directed rebuilding of the engine. Ofcourse it was contended by the counsel for the opposite parties that the area where the bus operated hilly terrain and driver was inexperienced. Evidently the complainant has sustained consumer monetary loss as the vehicle had been taken to repairs repeatedly and that too to the service station situated outside the place of the complainant. We find that the contention that the driver is not having the badge stands not established as such although the badge has not been produced. The contention of the counsel for the opposite parties is that the vehicle was purchased knowing fully well that the service centre is situated at Kannur. But the same is no excuse for the defect to the engine. The amounts altogether as per the bills produced including service and repairs work out to Rs.38112.50.
In the circumstances especially in view of the fact that there is no expert evidence the order of compensation is reduced to Rs.80000/- and cost to Rs.5000/- and interest to 9%. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 6.1.2011 the date of this order.
In the result the appeal 180/07 and A.10/08 is allowed in part and A.365/07 is dismissed.
Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT
[ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] Member