RAMAKRISHNA AUTO SERVICE vs BONDA VEERABHADRA RAO

THE complainant in C.D. 125/95 District Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada with the financial assistance of State Bank of India purchased a diesel auto for a sum of Rs. 58,000/- from the first opposite party on 1.9.1994. But within one month the auto used to give loud noise and broke down and the clutch plates were not working. THE complainant informed about the mechanical defect to the opposite party No. 1 who deputed a mechanic and got it repaired by fixing a new clutch plate. THE auto worked for a month and thereafter on 7.11.1994 the engine failed. THE first opposite party again sent a mechanic who removed the engine and sent it to Vijayawada without informing the complainant about the defect in the engine or the repairs required. After several phone calls the first opposite party sent the engine on 11.12.1994 with a bill for Rs. 2,592.16 Ps. Even thereafter it was not working properly and was giving trouble due to severe mechanical defects and breakdowns twice.

ALLEGING that there is a manufacturing and mechanical defects that cannot be rectified by mere repairs, the above complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest or to replace the auto with a new one and pay Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5.000/- towards loss of earning and for costs. The second opposite party filed a counter, which was adopted by the first opposite party. According to the opposite parties there was no inducement of any kind. to purchase the vehicle and the first opposite party sent a mechanic to Jaggampet on 10.11.1994 and the mechanic removed the engine and sent the engine through RTC driver, to Secunderabad. After the engine was attended at Secunderabad, it was fitted to the vehicle. But although the auto was in good condition, the complainant refused to give a receipt.

The 1st opposite party admitted sending a bill for Rs. 2,592.16 which according to it Rs. 1.392/- is for free replacement and the complainant has to pay the balance. On receiving the phone call on 5.2.1994 the first opposite party sent a mechanic, but the complainant refused to entrust the auto stating that he will go to Court. The first opposite party sent letters dated 17.2.1995 and 18.3.1995. But notwithstanding these repairs, the complainant still complaining that the repairs are not satisfactory and, therefore, the first opposite party again sent another mechanic of opposite party No. 2 by name G. Basavaraj alongwith another to attend to the repairs as evidenced by letter dated 27.3.1995. Although the required repairs were effected, the complaint was filed prior to 27.3.1995. It is their case that there is no defect in the vehicle and in the engine, but the complainant failed to take precautions in the use of the vehicle and utilisation of proper oil and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

ON behalf of the complainant Exs. A-l to A-II were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. The District Forum held that the counter itself shows that the opposite parties attended to the repairs of the vehicle number of times between 1.9.1994 when it was purchased and the date of filing of the complaint in February, 1995 which shows that there are defects in the vehicle and, therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that there is no defect in the vehicle and it needs no repairs cannot be accepted. The mere circumstance that the opposite parties removed the engine and sent the same for repairs to Secunderabad indicates that there is serious manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It also found that within a month after the purchase of the vehicle, the defects developed in the clutch plates and it is not disputed by the opposite parties that they have replaced the same while according to them there is no need to change the same within one year, and that the defect noticed is not a usual defect arising due to the usage of the vehicle but it must be a defect inherent in the manufacturing itself. It is only for the first time in the counter the opposite parties stated that the complainant did not take precautions in the use of the vehicle such as proper oil, etc., and that at no point of time they took such a plea even when the engine was repaired number of times by the mechanic of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex. A-9 is the bill-dated 9.11.1994, which shows that the cylinder, piston rod, and connected rod were replaced within two months.

WE have gone through the record and we are satisfied that the finding of the District Forum was fully supported by the material on record. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to the contra. For all the aforesaid reasons, we agree with the finding of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.