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



M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. v/s M. Abdul Latheef & Another

    Appeal No. 120 of 2015

    Decided On, 21 July 2016

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI
    By, PRESIDENT

    For the Appellant: K. Rajeshkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Reghukumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.172/2008 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikkode challenging the order of the Forum dated December 15, 2014 directing the opposite party No.2 to pay to the complainant Rs.3,81,025/- after taking back the vehicle from the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/-.

2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant is the owner of the Premier Road Star Mini Pickup Truck bearing registration No.KL-10-Y-5434 purchased by him on March 27, 2006 from the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle had several defects like gear slip, clutch raising etc. Further it was getting a mileage of 12Km, whereas the opposite parties promised a mileage of 16Km. Therefore complainant sought refund of the price of the vehicle Rs.3,81,025/- and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. First opposite party is M/s Sun Marine Automobiles, Kozhikkode and 2nd opposite party is M/s Premier Automobiles Limited, Pune, Maharashtra. They in their version contended thus before the Forum. First opposite party is the authorized dealer of 2nd opposite party. Purchase of the vehicle from the first opposite party is admitted. The complainant was using the vehicle in an overloading condition. The complaint occurred due to the wear and tear of the long use of the vehicle. The vehicle had no manufacturing defect. Complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4. On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A5 were marked before the Forum on the report of the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. Opposite parties were absent and were set exparte. Therefore the Forum allowed the complaint and directed the second opposite party to pay Rs.3,81,025/- to the complainant after taking back the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.25000/-. Second opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5. Heard both the counsels.6. The report of the expert commissioner, Ext.C1 shows that vehicle is suffering from several manufacturing defects. Complainant was not cross-examined by the counsel for the opposite parties. Subsequently opposite parties are also set exparte. In this appeal no reason is stated by the appellant for his absence before the Forum. Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in allowing the complaint and directing the 2nd opposite party t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o pay Rs.3,81,025/- after taking back the vehicle and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. In the result we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
O R