Filed on: 12.06.2014 Disposed on: 03.01.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 3rd AY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 750/2014

ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.16.05.2014 passed in CC.No.01/2014 on file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur.

2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;

The complainant for his livelihood purchased one Ape Truck Mark-1 G-Yellow, Engine No.EE0919068800 from the Opposite Party on 24.10.2009 bearing registration No. KA-44-2836 by paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- plus Rs.33,000/- on 30.10.2009 and the remaining amount paid by availing the loan from Srirama Finance at Tumkur. The Opposite Parties have delivered the said vehicle under delivery note No.601 date 30.10.2009. The complainant had tested the engine of the said vehicle in the showroom on 25.01.2013 and Opposite Parties have tasted the same by collecting a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant dtd. 02.02.2013 but after one month i. e during the warranty period there was a leakage of oil from the engine found in the said vehicle, due to which the complainant had approached the Opposite Party and explained the defect but the Opposite Parties have told that the defect will be automatically controlled in due course of use of the said vehicle but in spite of following the said guidance of the Opposite Parties, the said defect of leakage of oil i.e., manufacturing defect in the engine did not stop and thereby the complainant has approached the Opposite Parties on 21.11.2013 and left the vehicle with the custody of the Opposite Party under acknowledgment, but the Opposite Party have failed to rectify/repair the said mistake and violated the warranty condition which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 28.11.2013, but Opposite Party have given evasive reply hence this complaint.

3. After service of the notice of the District Commission, the OP/s have appeared through their counsel and filed the version and have admitted certain allegations of the complainant and denied all other. Further, contended that the complainant has failed to follow get 10 periodical free services to the vehicle as well as changing of engine which oil for every 1000 kilometer consumption hence, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

4. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint in part.

5. Heard from appellant.

6. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent had purchased a Truck Mark-1 G-Yellow, Engine No.EE0919068800 on 24.10.2009 bearing registration No.KA-44-2836 by paying totally an amount of Rs.63,000/- on 30.10.2009 and by obtaining loan from Sriram Finance at Tumkur paid the remaining balance. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was delivered by the appellant on 30.10.2009 under note No.601. It is also not in dispute that on 21.11.2013 respondent have left the vehicle under the job card No.974 and said vehicle is still in the custody of the appellant.

7. The allegation of the respondent is that after noticing the oil leakage in the engine, on 21.11.2013 he left the vehicle for repair but the appellant failed