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



Thirumala Raju Appala Venkata Satya Sivaramabhadra Varma v/s Kantipudi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Others

    FA No. 305 of 2015 Against CC No. 204 of 2012

    Decided On, 25 October 2017

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. MUTYALA NAIDU
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M. HariBabu, Ch. R. Vasantha Kumar, K. Kalpana, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, M.V. Suresh, K.S. Sravan Kumar, Advocates (Absent), R3, K. Venkateswarlu, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The unsuccessful complainant has challenged the dismissal of his complaint vide order dated 26.05.2015 in C C No.204 of 2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Visakapatnam.

2. The appellant filed the complaint in question before the Forum seeking a direction against the respondents to replace the car purchased by him with a new one or to refund the cost of Rs.9,78,158/- with interest at 24% from 04.04.2012. The appellant also prayed for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing financial loss and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony.

3. The appellant purchased the car "Nisson Sunny" on 04.04.2012 and covered the vehicle with an insurance policy. His case was that on 01.05.2012 he observed red lamp glow and suspected a problem in engine. He informed the same to respondent No.2 - the authorised service centre. The service personnel who were deputed to inspect the vehicle found damage to the engine oil sump. The vehicle was, therefore, taken to the service centre on 11.05.2012 and after effecting repairs it was delivered to him on 25.05.2012. The appellant paid Rs.27,414/- towards repair charges. However after using the vehicle for three days, i.e., on 28.05.2012, he found noise in the engine and when it was producing abnormal sounds, the vehicle was again taken to the service centre. On inspection it was found that the engine got seized and he was informed that the same should be replaced. But he was insisted upon to meet the cost of a sum of Rs.3,93,205/- for replacing the engine. The appellant was not inclined to pay the amount and on the plea that a defective vehicle was supplied to him, he filed the complaint in question before the Forum, alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The respondents resisted the complaint contending that there was no negligence on their part. They contended that on 28.05.2012 when they checked the vehicle, they found that there was no engine oil. They attributed negligence on the part of the appellant in handling the vehicle and contended that the seizure of engine was due to plying the vehicle without oil. They further contended that on the first occasion when the vehicle was brought on 11.05.2012 they rectified all the defects including the repair to the engine oil sump. They accordingly denied their liability.

5. Respondent No.3 who is the manufacture resisted the claim by taking the plea that there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. They contended that the oil sump was damaged on account of the accident to the vehicle and that the said fact was not disclosed by the appellant. They further contended that even after the first repair, the vehicle plied for a considerable distance and as such no liability can be fastened against them.

6. The Forum, after considering the above contentions and after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the allegations of manufacturing defects in the car made against the respondent No.3 and the allegations as to improper repairs to the vehicle by respondents 1 and 2 have not been substantiated by evidence or by filing any expert opinion and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

7. In this appeal Sri M. HariBabu, counsel for the appellant argued that the vehicle was a new one which was purchased on 04.04.2012 and within a few days there was a problem in the engine. He further contended that the engine was repaired on 25.05.2012 and within three days of its delivery i.e., on 28.05.2012 there was again a problem in the engine. The counsel therefore argued that this problem was only due to the manufacturing defect. The counsel further argued that when the sump was repaired on 25.05.2012 by changing the engine oil and when the engine oil completely dried up within three days, it was due to the improper repair effected by respondents 1 and 2. He submitted that the Forum did not appreciate these facts and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

8. The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 are absent.

9. Sh K. Venkateswarlu, counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the allegation as to manufacturing defect has not been substantiated. On the other hand the vehicle met with an accident on account of which alone the sump was damaged and not due to any manufacturing defect. The counsel further argued that no case is made out against the respondent No.3 to fasten liability against it.

10. We have considered the above contentions and perused the material on record. We have also perused the averments in the complaint and found that there is absolutely no allegation regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle. We also find that the appellant suppressed the fact that the sump was damaged in the accident. This fact was found only after the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.2 - service centre. We further find that when the accident occurred, the son of the appellant was driving the vehicle and he wanted to take undue advantage of purchasing a new vehicle by presenting the case as if there a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

11. Coming to the negligence on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, it is true that the sump was repaired and was delivered on 25.05.2012 after replacing the engine oil. When the vehicle was delivered, it had performed 5918 kms. No doubt on 28.05.2012 as per Ex.B5 the service personnel of opposite party No.2 found noise in the engine but they also found engine oil though at a low level. Hence they topped up the oil at the spot itself. By the time the complaint was reported on 28.05.2012 the vehicle the odometer showed 6240 kms. It means t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he vehicle had performed 322 kms. in three days time. It is to be noted that if there was defect in the repairs, the engine oil would not have lasted for three days and the engine would have seized immediately. We find that except making allegation that the repair was not done properly, the appellant did not file any evidence to prove the same. Therefore attributing negligence to respondents 1 and 2 is not sustainable. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Forum. There are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
O R