Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram

First Appeal No. A/12/547

(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/05/2012 in Case No. CC/09/248 of District Kannur)

1. The GM,Tata Motors Ltd

Marketing & Customer Support,Passenger Car Business Unit,8 th Floor,World Trade Centre No 1 Cuffe Parade,Mumbai

2. K V R Dreams Vehicles P Ltd

Kannur

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Reena Bessy

Cholamattam House,Chettlamparamba,Kelakam,Kannur

Kannur

Kerala

2. Koyenco Auto P Ltd

Kozhikode

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER
	SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.547/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 13/09/2013

(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.248/2009 on the file of CDRF, Kannur dated, 30/05/2012)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. TATA Motors,

Marketing & Customer Support,

Passenger Car Business Unit,

8^th Floor, Centre Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai.

2. K.V.R. Dream Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

P.O. Kizhunna, Thottada, Kannur-670 007.

(By Adv: Sri. V. Krishna Menon)

RESPONDENTS:

1. Beena Bessy,

Cholamattam House,

Chettiyamparamba P.O.,

Kelakam, Kannur District.

2. Koyenco Auto Private Limited,

Koyenco House, West Hill, Kozhikode-673 005.

(By Adv: Smt. Padmini.N.)

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER

The opposite parties are the appellants who preferred this appeal against the order in C.C.No.248/09 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The Forum Below allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 and 3 to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the invoice value of the vehicle and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. The complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Safari through the authorised agent, 1^st opposite party. The vehicle delivered was having manufacturing defect and it is very clear from the service history of the vehicle. It was assured by the 2^nd opposite party that the defects would be cleared or the vehicle would be replaced. Subsequently the 3^rd opposite party was replaced as the authorised agent of the 1^st opposite party and the complainant had to approach 3^rd opposite party with the same complaint. It is the allegation of the complainant that promise to rectify the defects were continued but the opposite parties were unable to rectify manufacturing defect. The complainant was compelled to send a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party to cure the manufacturing defect or to deliver a new vehicle. The vehicle was purchased on 16/05/2007 for an amount of Rs.8,01,063/-. The complainant suffered mental agony and it also affected the business and complainant’s family.

3. In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party it is contended that the opposite parties are renouned manufacturers of various types of vehicles. The vehicles are marketed only after getting approval by the Automotive Research Association of India. The allegation made by the complainant is baseless and there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The complainant purchased the vehicle in 2007 and the complaint is filed in 2009 ie. after the expiry of 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Hence the petition is barred by limitation under section 24(A) of the Act. The other contention raised by the opposite party is that the vehicle is having a warranty of 18 months irrespective of the distance covered if used for personal purposes. The warranty for the vehicle expired on 18/11/2008 and the present complaint is filed long after the expiry of warranty period and the petition is not maintainable as per the terms and conditions and the complaint is to be dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document