By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :

          The case is that the complainant Panchayath purchased  a Bolero seven seated vehicle from 1^st respondent  and registration No. of the vehicle is KL45 A 9824.  2^nd respondent is the authorized dealer and 3^rd respondent is the authorized service centre.  The complainant started to use the vehicle from 11/1/08 and the vehicle was serviced twice from 3^rd respondent.  The vehicle was not in a running condition and  sometimes the engine got off while running.  The vehicle also had some starting problems.  The matter was intimated to 3^rd respondent and  as per their direction the vehicle was surrendered with 3^rd respondent on 3/7/08.  The vehicle was surrendered for  repair within the warranty period and so it should be repaired free of cost.  But 3^rd respondent charged an amount of Rs.10,742/- for repairing. The complainant paid the amount under protest.  The complainant’s claim for  free repair was rejected by 3^rd respondent by giving a statement  that the engine of the vehicle was damaged due to  adulteration in fuel.  The complainant has purchased fuel for the vehicle only from 4^th respondent and  if at all any  adulteration 4^th respondent is liable for amount incurred for repairing the vehicle.  The complainant Panchayath is represented by Secretary who is authorized  by the Panchayath Committee.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter averments of 1^st and 2^nd respondents are that the transactions between these respondents and 3^rd respondent are on principal to principal basis.  3^rd respondent used to  place bulk orders for vehicles and these respondents used to supply the vehicles in large numbers.  These respondents will not know about the ultimate   buyer of the vehicle at the time of purchase.  So there is no privity of contract between the complainant and these respondents.  The averments that the vehicle surrendered for  repair within the warranty period is not within the direct knowledge of these respondents.  The vehicle was  initially inspected by them when brought with the 3^rd respondent and since the complaints pertained to fuel injection pump, to diagnose  the complaint  the fuel injection pump  manufactured by Bosh was immediately forwarded  to M/s.Stanes Motors Parts Ltd., who are the authorizsed workshop of Bosh and it was later informed by the above authorized workshop that  drive shaft, cross disc and part load governer which are integral part of the fuel injection pump  are completely   rusted and in  damaged condition  due to fuel adulteration.  So as per  Clause 6 of warranty the decision of proprietary manufacturer is final  and binding.  In the present case it was informed by  3^rd respondent that the matter was taken up and found  that the  vehicle had shown trouble due to  rusting in the above mentioned parts of fuel injection pump due to fuel adulteration.  It is in the above circumstances 3^rd respondent had  charged and there is no violation of terms of warranty.  There is no cause of action against these respondents.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Version of 3^rd respondent is to the effect that this respondent is the authorized dealer and service centre of 1^st respondent.  The authorized  officers of the complainant personally inspected the vehicle even at the time of taking delivery.  When the vehicle  was brought to the workshop of this respondent on 1/7/08 it was  complained of having the fuel system checked since there was starting trouble to the vehicle.  As the vehicle was within the warranty period and since  for ancillary items  such as fuel injection pump,  tyres etc. only the authorized service certre of  manufacturer could examine the same this respondent had removed the fuel injection pump  and forwarded it to M/s.Stanes Motors Parts Ltd.  After examining,  returned the same stating that the  damage caused to the pump was on account of usage of  adulterated fuel  and  unable to carry out the repairs under warranty as per Bosch norms.  This aspect had been made known to the officers of complainant.  This respondent  is not liable for  quality of the fuel used in the vehicle.  There is no cause of action against this respondent.  Hence dismiss.

          4. Averments in the counter of 4^th respondent are that it is incorrect that the complainant had used fuel  in the disputed vehicle from this  petrol pump and denied.  It is also incorrect that the fuel in this pump is adulterated.  This respondent is an unnecessary party in the complaint.  The fuel using in this pump is having high quality and the  fuel supplying by IOC is selling without adulterating.  There is no complaint from  any other consumer.  The complaint is filed to defame the respondent.  Hence dismiss.

          5. The version of 5^th respondent is that the 4^th  respondent is the authorized dealer of this respondent.  The dealer is bound to supply fuel after ascertaining its  density and quality  prescribed by this respondent.  There is no adulteration of fuel as alleged in the case.  If there is any adulteration this respondent  is no way liable.   There is no specific averment against this respondent.  The complaint is filed on  experimental basis without any cause of action.  This respondent is no way  liable for adulteration if any  made by the dealers.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this respondent.  Hence dismiss.

          6. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by respondents?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          7. Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P9.  No evidence adduced by respondents.

          8. Points: The complainant is Nenmanikara Grama Panchayath represented by Secretary.  They have purchased a Bolero seven seated vehicle manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra.   According to them the vehicle was not in running condition and some times  the engine got off while running.  According to them the vehicle also  had some starting problems.  They would say that on 3/7/08 the vehicle was surrendered with 3^rd respondent.  It is the case that the vehicle was surrendered  to repair by 3^rd respondent within the warranty period and so it should be  repaired free of cost.  3^rd respondent  charged an amount of Rs.10,742/- which is against the terms of warranty.  This complaint is filed to get back the amount taken by 3^rd respondent to repair the vehicle  within the warranty period.

          9. The case of respondents  1 to 3 is that the engine of the vehicle was damaged due to adulteration in fuel.  So 3^rd respondent is entitled  to take charge for repair.  According to complainant they had purchased fuel for the vehicle only from 4^th respondent and if any adulteration in the fuel  4^th respondent is liable  for the amount incurred for repair of the vehicle.  All the respondents filed their version in detail.

          10. 4^th respondent is the petrol bunk and it is their contention that they are supplying the fuel  provided by 5^th respondent and there is no question of adulteration.  They would also say that there is no complaint against them from any other consumer.  Exhibit P6 is a letter from Stanes Motors Parts Ltd.  It would show that the drive shaft, cross disc and part load governer are completely rusted and damaged condition due to fuel adulteration.  So it can be considered that the damage of these parts are because of fuel adulteration.

          11. The Secretary of Panchayath is examined as PW1 and according to her the damage to parts is because of fuel adulteration  as per Exhibit P6.  She has deposed in  tune with her case.  It is the case of Panchayath that all the respondents are liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,472/- to the complainant.

          12. It is to be noted that even if all the five respondents filed their version there is not at all any evidence adduced by them.  It is the contention of 1^st to 3^rd respondents that since the damage of  parts was because of fuel adulteration they are not at all liable.  As per Exhibit P6 the reason for damage is fuel adulteration and it is the case of complainant that they have purchased fuel for the vehicle only from 4^th respondent.  So the complainant would say that  if there any adulteration through the fuel the 4^th respondent is liable for the amount incurred  for repairing of the vehicle.  It is seen that the complainant is not  at all sure about the adulteration of fuel.  There is no expert opinion in this case and the fuel adulteration is stated in Exhibit P6 only.  As per Exhibit P3 the Panchayath issued show cause to 4^th respondent.  But there is no reply seen from 4^th respondent.  It is a serious  allegation against 4^th respondent and it should be taken by 4^th respondent very seriously. As per Exhibit P9 it can be seen that the Panchayath had used the fuel of 4^th respondent for Rs.7,411/-.  It would show that the Panchayath is taking fuel from 4^th respondent without payment and the payment was only on later course.

          13. The case of 1^st to 3^rd respondents is that they are not liable to return the amount to complainant because the damage to parts of the vehicle was because of fuel adulteration.  As per Exhibit P6 fuel adulteration is the reason for rust and damage.  Even if there is no other expert evidence this  can be taken as evidence and the complainant given oral evidence also. The respondents failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their versions.  As stated earlier it is a serious allegation against 4^th respondent and it was  their duty to disprove the allegation.  But they did not do any thing.  In the circumstance it is found that unfair trade practice had committed by 4^th respondent and is liable to pay compensation also.

          14. In the result the complaint is allowed and 4^th respondent is directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,472/- (Rupees Ten thousand four hundred and seventy two only) to complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the  24^th day  of June        2014.