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

The Manager, Apco Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Patterkulam, Narukara (P.O), Manjeri v/s Rasak & Others

    Appeal No. 743 of 2017

    Decided On, 30 November 2017

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: K.S. Arundas, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----------

Judgment Text

S.S. Satheesachandran: President

First opposite party in CC.428/14 has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum) Malappuram directing opposite parties 1 to 3 as indicated hereunder.

a. To get the vehicle repaired by challenging the ‘half engine’ in warranty as agreed upon by opposite party No.1 in Ext.A1 and also make all the necessary repairs to the vehicle.

b. The complainant is directed to give the required permission to opposite party No.1 in writing for repairing the vehicle within 7 days of the receipt of copy of this order.

c. Opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 are directed to get the vehicle repaired within 15 days of the receipt of the permission of the complainant for getting the vehicle repaired.

d. The opposite parties 1 to 3 shall not collect any repairing charges from the complainant for getting the vehicle repaired and making it road worthy and

e. The opposite parties 1 to 3 shall not collect any amount from the complainant as carriage rent.

2. Complainant alleging deficiency of service and also manufacturing defect over a motor vehicle purchased from the dealer, the first opposite party/appellant, fileD the complaint impleading the manufacturer and also two of its Area Managers, for issue of directions for replacement of vehicle or refund the value thereof, and also for payment of compensation and cost. His claim was resisted by the opposite parties. First and fourth opposite parties filed separate versions and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed joint version. Opposite parties have challenged the claim of complainant as unsustainable.

3. On the materials placed by both sides and also hearing the counsel Forum below concluded that the vehicle had no manufacturing defect and therefore the prayer for direction to replace the vehicle or refund of the value does not arise. In that view of the matter claim of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- canvassed by the complainant was repelled. However, the Forum analyzing the facts and evidence arrived at the finding that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in repairing the vehicle and in that view of the matter directions were issued to repair of the vehicle as indicated earlier.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first opposite party appellants argued before us that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are not co-operating for complying with the Order and as such it is unable to bear the entire expenses required for carrying out the repair of vehicle as directed by the Forum. We find from the perusal of the Order that the appellant had agreed to change the half engine of the vehicle under warranty stating that they have obtained sanction from 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer, and permission from complainant alone was required case. Taking into account the above aspect the Forum has passed the Order with directions as indicated above. That Order is binding not only on the appellant but also 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Joint and several liability has been cast upon the op

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

posite parties and if 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are not co-operating remedy of the first opposite party is not by way of appeal but lies elsewhere, but that would arise only after complying with the order of the Forum. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed as not admitted.