SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Smt. A. Radha, Member, Shri. K. Chandradas Nadar, Judicial Member and Smt. Santhamma Thomas, Member
M/S. POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SUMESH V.B. - Respondent
Appeal No. 494 of 2014 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C. No. 424 of 2012 dated 31.3.2014 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam)
Decided on : 11-05-2016

Advocates Appeared:
S. Reghukumar, Advocate and V. Santharam and Deepesh A.S, Advocates, for the Appellant; G. Udayabhanu, Advocate, for the Respondent

Compliance with warranty terms and the need to prove manufacturing defects for replacement or refund of a vehicle under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Pre-owned vehicle purchase - Section 13(1)(c) - A7

Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a pre-owned vehicle which developed recurring defects. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was sold due to manufacturing defects, but failed to prove it as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defects in the vehicle were rectified by the appellants during the warranty period, and the complainant's allegation of manufacturing defects was not proven.

Issues: Alleged manufacturing defects in pre-owned vehicle, compliance with warranty terms, appointment of expert for examination under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Manufacturing defects need to be proven to replace or refund the vehicle. Compliance with warranty terms and appointment of an expert for examination under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory.

Final Decision: Both appeals were allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

JUDGMENT

Smt. A. Radha, Member - Both these appeals arise out of the order passed in C.C. No. 424/2012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam wherein the Forum Below partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,55,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 11/2/2012 the complainant purchased a pre-owned Maruti Omni vehicle from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-. A loan for Rs. 50,000/- was availed from financiers to be repaid in 36 equal instalments @ Rs. 1,825/- p.m. The purpose of purchasing the vehicle was that the complainant's father was very sick and had to be taken to the Hospital often. The father of the complainant was a diabetic patient whose right foot was amputed and it was highly necessary to have a vehicle for taking him to the Hospital. Three days after the delivery of the vehicle the vehicle stopped abruptly. Thereafter several times the vehicle had defects and had to tow the vehicle to the workshop. The complainant had to suffer bitter experiences from the opposite party and no job cards issued to the complainant against the repairs. It has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the vehicle belongs to one Ms. Jasmin who returned the vehicle to the opposite party on finding manufacturing defects. Concealing the fact that the vehicle was defective, the 1st opposite party indulged in unfair trade practise and sold the vehicle in true value claiming that vehicle is in good and excellent condition. The complaint is filed to get refund of Rs. 1,55,000/- with interest @ 18% and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The 1st opposite party resisted the allegations in the version contending that the true value pre-owned cars offered for sale after exhibiting it in the display and offers were for one year or 15000 kms warranty, accident free vehicles, renovated after 120 point checks, 3 free services and certified by Maruti Engineers. It is admitted that the vehicle price was fixed and exhibited as Rs. 1,55,000/-. The car supplied to the complainant is free from defects and was in good condition. As per the service history of the vehicle the complainant brought the vehicle on 11/5/2012 at 34078 kms for 1st free service. The entire satisfaction was marked by the complainant and took delivery of the vehicle after test drive. As per job card No. JC-12003165 the vehicle was brought on 26/5/2012 at 34204 kms. On 3/7/2012 34481 kms the complainant brought the vehicle for running repair. Every time after the service the complainant took the vehicle endorsing satisfaction of service. The certification of complainant's vehicle was done by the service engineer of the 1st opposite party and the averments of defects contrary is denied. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The written statement filed by opposite parties 2 to 4 states that the liability of these opposite parties had already set out under the warranty policy. The complaint is bad for mis-jointer of party. The vehicle in question comes under GR category and is undoubtedly defect-free and in perfect road worthy condition. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected before delivery to the complainant. The complaint is filed with malafide intension to extract money on false allegations. The complaint is merely based on exaggerations and as per the warranty policy the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. These opposite parties ensured quality by inspecting the entire process under 120 point check up. Further the pre-owned vehicles should thoroughly be checked by the evaluator of the dealer. At the time of sale the delivery receipt, delivery check list and buyer feedback form are filled up and returned to the opposite party. No complaint or defect pointed out by the complainant. The complainant had not approached the Forum Below with clean hands and filed this compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top