w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K.C. Shaju v/s Manager, Sakthi Automobiles & Others

    Appeal No. 531 of 2015

    Decided On, 28 November 2017

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: V. Unnikrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---------



Judgment Text

S.S. Satheesachandran: President

Complainant is the appellant. Appeal is directed against the dismissal of his complaint CC 519/2010 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur.

2. Complainant alleging manufacturing defects over a motor vehicle purchased by him from opposite parties filed the complaint claiming refund of value of the vehicle with compensation of Rupees Three lakhs and also cost of proceedings. The tyres of vehicle one after the other burst during running and it was on account of manufacturing defects in the chasis of vehicle, according to the complainant. On that basis he approached the forum for refund of price of the vehicle with compensation and costs. Third opposite party manufacturer of the vehicle alone appeared and resisted the claim. Among other contentions, third opposite party contended that complainant was not a consumer, the tyres had no manufacturing defects and the warranty period of the vehicle was also over. It was also contended that complainant had carried out unauthorized alterations/additions to the suspense of the vehicle and that caused problems of bursting of tyre.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by any of the parties. Complainant exhibited A1 to A9 in evidence.

4. During the pendency of proceedings the vehicle involved in an accident suffered irretrievable damages and complainant admittedly got a sum of Rupees Five lakhs nine thousand four hundred and one as compensation for the vehicle. The lower forum taking note of the above circumstance along with the failure of complainant to take out an expert commission to assess the manufacturing defects alleged over the vehicle concluded that he had failed to prove his case and, accordingly, his complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved he has preferred this appeal.

5. We heard counsel for the appellant. Since the vehicle was totally damaged in an accident during the pendency of proceedings no expert commission could have been taken to establish the claim is the submission of counsel for complainant. Perusing the records we find none of the contentions raised by third opposite party in their version to resist the claim had been challenged by complainant. The vehicle during one year had covered more than 37450 Kms in an year, approximately 3120 Kms in a month and it indicated that the vehicle had no manufacturing defects, was one among the contentions raised by opposite party. Similarly they have contended that unauthorized alterations/additions to the suspension of the vehicle by fixing additional spring leaves had been carried out by complainant for carrying extra load. He has thereby violated the terms and conditions of warranty policy was the case of opposite party. As already indicated, the above contentions advanced by opposite party have much force and decisive value in examining the claim for refund of the price of vehicle and compensation by complainant. If he had carried out material alterations to the vehicle for carrying extra load as contended by opposite party it is reasonable to hold such alterations might have caused bursting of tyres and defects to the vehicle. Even after filing of version by opposite party raising such contentions complainant

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

did not take steps for inspection of the vehicle through an expert. Later the vehicle was totally damaged in an accident is a lame execuse for the failure of complainant for not taking an expert commission. Analysing the facts and circumstances involved in the case we do not find any impropriety in the Order passed by the forum dismissing the complaint.
O R