Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.      Vettoor R. Jayaprakash,           S/o Late Ramakrishnan,           R/o Ananda Bhavan, Market Road, Attingal - 695101.
 
2.      M/s Indus Motor Co. Ltd.,           Thiruvananthapuram,           Represented by the Manager           Indus Motor Co. Ltd., T.C. 24/885,           Mettukada, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
 

    (R2 rep. by Advs. Sri. P.K. Aboobacker & Sri. Deepesh A.S )   APPELLANT    M/s Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by the Manager Indus Motor Co. Ltd., T.C. 24/885, Mettukada, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

          (Rep. by Advs. Sri. P.K. Aboobacker & Sri. Deepesh A.S)                      Vs   RESPONDENTS  

1.      Vettoor R. Jayaprakash,           S/o Late Ramakrishnan,           Ananda Bhavan, Market Road, Attingal  

2.      The Chairman,           Maruti Udyog Ltd.,           11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash,           25th Kasthurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

 

                        (R2 rep. by Adv. Sri. V. Santharam & Sri. G.S. Prakash)     COMMON JUDGMENT   SHRI . M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL  MEMBER   The above appeals are preferred from the common order dated 15-04-2009 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP Nos. 98/02 & 191/2003.  The complaints therein were filed alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in effecting sale and service of a Zen Diesel Motor Car which was purchased by the complainant on 15-09-1999.  The complainant also alleged manufacturing defect in the aforesaid vehicle and also alleged deficiency in service in realizing repairing charges from the complainant for rectifying the manufacturing defects in the said vehicle.  Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate written version denying the alleged deficiency of service on their part.  They also contended that the complaint is not maintainable and that the same is barred by limitation.  They also denied the alleged manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and contended that the complaint is filed suppressing the material facts.  It is further contended that the defects in the vehicle occurred due to the improper use of the vehicle by the thieves who committed theft of the vehicle on 06-08-2000 and also due to the negligent driving of the said vehicle.  Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP No. 98/2002.

 

15.    The expert Commissioner has also detected crack on the front left side of the chassis and the said crack was seen welded with a plate for reinforcement.  According to the expert the aforesaid crack was developed due to vibration/impact load/inadequate design of the chassis.  At this juncture, it is to be noted that the said vehicle met with a major accident by colliding with a KSRTC bus.  The definite case of the opposite parties is that the said crack developed due to the said collision with KSRTC bus.  It is to be noted that the said accident occurred on 04-02-2000 and that the vehicle was repaired at the workshop of the second opposite party.  The complainant had also obtained the insurance claim with respect to the loss sustained by the complainant.  But there is no case for the second opposite party that in the said accident there was a crack developed.  It is true that the job card would show that there was a bent to the chassis.  But, there is no case for the second opposite party that there was a crack on the chassis as a result of the accident which occurred on 04-02-2000.  Ext.P11 cash bill dated 20-01-2003 issued by Nikhil Taj Maruti Authorized Service Station, Attingal would show that the broken chassis was welded on 20-01-2003.  This P11 document would give an indication that the chassis was broken subsequent to the accident.  This circumstance would support the finding of the expert Commissioner that the crack was developed due to the engine vibration etc.  It is further to be noted that the expert had the occasion to evaluate the performance of the vehicle by driving the same.  The finding of the expert Commissioner that there was unusual engine vibration is to be believed and accepted.  There is no reason or ground to doubt the aforesaid finding made by the expert.  It is also to be noted that the expert Commissioner can only be treated as an independent expert and what are all reported by the expert can be treated as his findings based on his inspection.  The expert in Para 21 and 22 of his report has also reported about the functioning of the original fuel injection pump and the reason stated by the Customer Care Manager of the second opposite party about the functioning of the fuel injection pump originally fitted to the Maruti Zen Diesel Car.  But, it is to be noted that all those defects with respect to the fuel injection pipe were rectified by the second opposite party/dealer by replacing the same.

 

17.    The opposite parties have also got a case that the vehicle was stolen by thieves and for some time the vehicle was in the possession of the thieves and they used the vehicle in an improper way.  To substantiate the aforesaid case of the opposite parties they relied on B1 copy of FIR dated 07-08-2000.  The aforesaid FIR was lodged by Attingal police based on the first information statement given by the complainant.  The theft of the vehicle occurred on 06-08-2000.  But there is nothing on record to show that due to the use of the vehicle by the thieves anything happened to the vehicle causing any defects.  The mere fact that the vehicle was in the possession of the thieves for some time cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the defects in the vehicle occurred due to the use of the vehicle by the thieves.  It is also to be noted that after recovery of the vehicle from the thieves it has been maintaining at the workshop of the second opposite party.  At the relevant time the second opposite party had no case that the problems developed in the vehicle on account of the improper use of the vehicle after 06-08-2000.  So, the aforesaid contention taken by the opposite parties cannot be accepted as such.