D.O.F:05/10/2020
D.O.O:08/12/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.130/2020
Dated this, the 08th day of December 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
Anilesh Alva K
S/o Sachidananda,
R/at Peradala House, Peradala Post
Badiadka Village, Kasaragod Taluk,
Kasaragod District : Complainant
(Adv: Naveen S N)
And
1. The Manager,
Pioneer Motors Panalam
Cheroor Post,
Kasaragod Taluk
Kasaragod District : Opposite Parties
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
2. PIAGGIO Vehicles Pvt Ltd
SKY One, Sr.No.210, RP No. 72,
Town Planning Scheme, Yervada
Pune – 411006.
(Adv: Shafi.M)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The facts of the case is as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the LMV goods carriage KL-14 X 3221. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties on 09/02/2019 after exchanging his old Mahindra goods carriage Opposite Party No: 1 is the dealer and Opposite Party No: 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle. Inspite of service made serious defect is noted in the vehicle. Vehicle taken to dealer many times defect not rectified. Vehicle is kept in idle in the house of the complainant. The complainant availed loan of Rs 3,93,000/- from Indostar Capital Finance Ltd payable by EMI of Rs. 11150. The complainant is praying for a direction to Opposite Parties to deliver a new vehicle for exchanging the defective vehicle or Rs. 4,10,000/- as damage to the complainant and compensation cost of the proceedings.
2. The Opposite Party No: 1 filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint. The case of the alleged manufacturing defect of the vehicle is denied. There is no unfair trade practice. The vehicle is lying in the courtyard to the complainant. There is no liability for Opposite Party No: 1 being the dealer to replace the vehicle or to pay its price. And prayed to dismiss the claim against Opposite Party No:1.
3. The Opposite Party No: 2 filed written version. The Opposite Party No:2 denied the allegations of the complainant and admitted the purchase of the vehicle service are given in time. The idea of complainant is to make unlawful enrichment. There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The complainant did not inform Opposite Party No:2 about any issue of the perform of the vehicle. Defects of the vehicle if any is not informed to Opposite Party No: 2 and prayed for dismiss of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed chief affidavit marked documents Ext A1 to A5 and cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 is the copy of the R.C of the vehicle KL – 14 X 3221, copy of R.C of the vehicle KL 14 N 2343 as Ext A2. Warranty card is marked as Ext A3 and copy of the notice from the finance issued to the any as Ext A4 and A5. The Opposite Parties not adduced any evidence.
Considering the rival contentions following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle and whether complainant is entitled to refund of its price?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service? And whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the points are discussed together.
The complainant’s case is that the vehicle delivered to him is having defects and Opposite party failed to cure the defect and prayed for deliver new vehicle or its price. The Opposite parties denies allegation on the ground that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect.
It is noted that there is no evidence available by the complainant to prove that there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The complainant did not take any steps to get expert opinion relating the manufacturing defect. If any manufacturing defect to it is the duty of the complainant to produce vehicle before dealer either repair or replacement. Keeping vehicle idle for such a long period cannot be believed. It is not made clear for which part of the vehicle having manufacturing defect. Since complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect the claim for replacement of the vehicle as well as refund of the price is rejected. But at the same time the complainant is entitled to service from the dealer.
Pw1 while in the box admitted that no steps taken to prove the manufacturing defect. The vehicle is taken for repair. Pw1 further says defect is noted after three free services.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case having rejecting the claim for replaced / refund of its price, but Opposite party No:1 is bound to attend to its repair and rectify the defect if any found on inspection. There is no case for the complainant that vehicle was taken to the dealer at any time that the dealer refused to deliver back in time. In this circumstances it is found that there is no deficiency in service rendered by Opposite party No: 1 and hence claim for compensation is also rejected. Since no manufacturing defect the claim against Opposite party No: 1 is also not sustainable and rejected.
In the result claim for compensation and cost also rejected. But at the same time. If the complainant brings the vehicle for repair/services to Opposite party No:1, Opposite party No: 1 is directed to attend the repair free of cost, if covered by warranty period. If warranty period is not covered Opposite party No:1 is entitled to collect the charges from the complainant subject to the above complaint is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C KL 14 X 3221
A2- Copy of R.C KL 14 N 2343
A3- Copy of the service book/warranty card
A4 & A5- Notice received from Indostar Finance Ltd (2 in number)
Witness Examined
Pw1- Anilesh Alwa
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
