IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of December, 2016.
Filed on 23.02.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in
C.C.No.60/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Krishnakumar, 1. The Area Manager,
Thottuchira Veedu Bajaj Auto Ltd,
Aryad North P.O 4th Floor Manjooran Estate
Alappuzha, Cheranalloor Road, Bypass
Pin.688501. Junction, Edappally
Cochin- 682024
2. Bajaj Auto Ltd
Registered & Head Office
Akurdi, Pune- 411 035
India
(Adv.Aravind Gosh)
3. Bajaj Auto Finance
Bajaj Finance Ltd
C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd
Old Mumbai Arkudi
Pune- 411 035
(Adv. G.Sunil kumar)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant is an Auto rickshaw driver. He ekes out his living by plying autorickshaw. The complainant in April 2016 purchased a Optima Diesel Bajaj Auto rickshaw from the opposite parties. The same got registered and it carries the number KL-04 – AG-9852. The auto rickshaw was purchased on giving Rs. 47,000/- directly to the opposite parties and on availing finance from the third opposite party. The opposite parties issued a warranty for a period of two years. Right from a few days later the material auto rickshaw displayed diverse defects and imperfections. The clutch system, handle, from wheel, etc. showed major impairments. On so many occasions the complainants approached the opposite parties showroom but every time the complainant was sent back citing scarcity of spare parts. The vehicle went out of order frequently and hence the complainant had to keep the vehicle idle without plying. In this context, it was difficult for the complainant to make remittance towards the loan account of the vehicle. In November 2015, the complainant took the vehicle to the showroom for its third service only to see that the showroom was locked forever. The material vehicle is having inherent manufacture defect. That apart the opposite parties haven’t carried out services promptly. The complainant sustained mental agony besides monitory loss. Got aggrieved on this complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. Notice were sent and served. The first and second opposite parties turned u before this Forum and filed joint version. The third opposite party filed separate version. The crux of the opposite parties contention is that the material vehicle was being used by the complainant for a prolonged period of one year without any defects after its purchase. The complainant though alleges manufacturing defect neither expert opinion nor any other proof has been produced by the complainant. The intention of the complainant is to make illegal enrichment. The complainant has not subjected the vehicle to any of the mandatory services in many authorized service centers in line with opposite parties, instructions. Though the opposite parties ceased their operations in Alappuzha district, the opposite parties have been providing services through their Kottayam dealer. In the service book issued to the complainant, toll free number of the company is available through which service detail could be sought easily. The complainant never made use of this facility. The vehicle sold to the petitioner is having no manufacturing defect. The service of the opposite parties is not deficient. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with post to the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, and the documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties documents were marked as Exts.B1 to Ext.B3
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up for consideration before us are:-
(1) Whether the material vehicle purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing
defect?
(2) Whether the opposite parties service is deficient?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant case is that the complainant purchased an autorickshaw from the opposite parties. The material vehicle showed imperfections at regular intervals, and the complainant was forced to cease plying of the same. The vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Keeping the complainant’s contention in mind we cautiously perused the contentions put forth by the opposite parties. The pivotal contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant came up with the above contentions after successfully plying the vehicle for a period of one year. However, the complainant never made it a point to carry out regular mandatory services as to the vehicle. We went through the entire placed on record before us by the complainant and the opposite parties. We with a mathematical exactitude analyzed the documents proof affidavit and the testimony of the complainant. We scrutinized Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 brought on record by the opposite parties. It does appear that the complainant makes serious allegations namely manufacturing defect of the vehicle, and seeks either replacement of the vehicle or refund of its cost. In the light of this, we feel that a deeper analysis of the materials available before us is necessary, and we did so. No convincing evidence is seemingly coming from the part of the complainant either to support or substantiate the complainant’s serious contentions. It is not disputed that the complainant has used the vehicle for a period of one year before approaching this Forum. It appears that the complainant has without any basis made contentions unsupported by factual circumstance or other materials. The complainant must be in some financial crunch, and has failed to effect repayments as to the vehicle loan and in order to wriggle out of his liability to pay off his debt the complainant must have approached this Forum with a fanciful complaint. Thus analyzing the materials in its entirety, we are persuaded to accept the plausible version of the opposite parties. As we have already observed the complainant has not brought a scrap of paper or a pinch of evidence otherwise to convince this Forum his case. In this context, it goes without saying that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
For the forgoing facts and finding of the present case herein above, we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed. The complaint is disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2016.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Krishnakumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Registration Certificate
Ext.A2 - Payments chart
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of Auto Loan Agreement
Ext.B2 - Copy of Annexure:B
Ext.B3 - Copy of Annexure C
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Compd. By:
