KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
COMMON ORDER IN APPEAL NOS.554/2010 AND 614/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 29..7..2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL NO.554/2010
T.P.Abraham, : APPELLANT
Thoppil Veedu,
Elampazhannoor.P.O.,
Chadayamangalam,
Kollam.Dist.
Vs.
1. M/S Indus Motors, Pattom.P.O., : RESPONDENTS
Thiruvananthpauram – 4.
(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)
2. Anesh(Kadakkal)
Dy;Team Leader C/o Indus Motors,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
3. Maruthy Udyog Ltd.,
II Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25,
Kasthurba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi, 110001
APPEAL NO. 614/2010
M/S Indus Motors, Pattom.P.O., : APPELLANT Thiruvananthpauram – 4.
(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)
Vs.
1. T.P.Abraham, : RESPONDENTS
Thoppil Veedu,
Elampazhannoor.P.O.,
Chadayamangalam,
Kollam.Dist.
2. Anesh(Kadakkal)
Dy;Team Leader
Indus Motors,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
3. Maruthy Udyog Ltd.,
II Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25,
Kasthurba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi, 110001
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 31.7.10 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.61/07 is being assailed by the complainant who is not satisfied with the order and the 1st opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order. Appeal 554/2010 is filed by the complainant and Appeal 614/10 is filed by the 1st opposite party.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a senior citizen and that he has purchased a Maruti Omni vehicle from the 1st opposite party on 27/12/06 and that from the first date itself the vehicle had defects and the 1st opposite party assured to rectify the defects during the first service. It is his case that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop on several occasions and even after repeated efforts of the 1st opposite party, the vehicle remained to be defective. The complainant has also alleged that though an amount of Rs.11500/- was collected from the complainant towards additional warranty, no warranty card was issued to him. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one and to pay compensation and cost for the difficulties endured by him.
3. Initially opposite parties were set ex-parte. However the 3rd opposite party filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order which was allowed and the version was filed by the 3rd opposite party. The Forum below on the affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents marked through him and also on getting a commission report marked as C1, passed the impugned order.
4. The appellant/complainant has approached this Commission for enhancement of the compensation ordered by the Forum below or in the alternative for a direction to replace the vehicle with a new one. It is also argued by him that the Forum below had not appreciated the entire evidence in its correct perspective and a remand of the matter will be just and proper. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is his very case that the vehicle had defects from the very beginning itself and inspite of repeated repairs the condition of the vehicle could not be improved and in such a situation Forum ought to have directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one.
5. On the other hand the appellant in A.614/10 who is 1st opposite party before the Forum below submitted before us that they could not participate in the proceedings before the Forum below since they were ex-parte and also due to the reason that the employee who was looking after the matter regarding the cases before the Forum misplaced the notice received from the Forum below. He has submitted that the complainant has violated warrantee conditions and the vehicle was run without compliance of the directions in the ‘Owners Manual’. It is also the case of the 1st opposite party/appellant that all the repairs that were required by the complainant were properly attended to and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st opposite party did not get an opportunity to contest the matter before the Forum below.
6. On hearing the learned counsel in the respective appeals, we find that the complainant has a case that the vehicle purchased by him from the 1st opposite party was defective from the very date of purchase. It is also his case that inspite of repeated repairs the vehicle could not be rectified properly and in such a situation the order ought to have been for the replacement of the vehicle. At the same time the 1st opposite party/appellant has submitted that he did not get a chance for contesting the matter before the Forum and it was only when they received the order from the Forum below that they came to know about the existence of a complaint before the Forum. However we find that the 1st opposite party has received the notice from the Forum though they would contend that the notice from the District Forum was misplaced in their office by an officer who received the notice. We are not inclined to accept the said contention. However it is also noted that the complainant has also a case that the order of the Forum below is not satisfactory. In the circumstances we feel that a remand of the matter for a fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the 1st opposite party(appellant in A.614/2010) will meet the ends of justice. All the same the prayer of the appellant/1st opposite party can be allowed only on terms. The 1st opposite party/appellant is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost and on payment of the same the Forum below will permit the 1st opposite party to file written version and contest the matter in accordance with law. The complainant/ appellant is also at liberty to adduce further evidence if any in support of his contention that he is entitled to the replacement of the vehicle or for enhanced compensation.
In the result the order dated 31.7.10 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.61/07 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum below for giving opportunity to the 1st opposite party for filing written version and adduce evidence on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. However the complainant is at liberty to adduce further evidence if any, and pursue the matter regarding enhanced compensation/replacement of vehicle.
The parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 3..9..2011.
Office is directed to sent back the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ps
