MALABAR MOTORS Vs. K. V. JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 24.4.2013, passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, State Commission), Petitioner/O.P. No. 1 has filed this revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that Respondent No.1/Complainant purchased powertrac 445 tractor with compressor manufactured by Respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 from petitioner on 16.02.2007 which was delivered to respondent no.1 on 23.2.2007. Within a short span of three months mechanical problem started leading to the break -down of the tractor on 12.05.07. The same was informed to the petitioner and tractor was taken to them for necessary repairs. It is further alleged that tractor was delivered back to respondent no.1 on 16.05.07 stating that defect was to the gear box and necessary repairs have been done and no further complaints would arise. But again on 24.08.07 the vehicle showed the same trouble in an aggravated form and same was again entrusted to the petitioner. Tractor was delivered back on 27/08/07 on the pretext that all the repairs have been done. Again on 20/10/07 due to the same trouble the vehicle broke down again and the vehicle was entrusted to petitioner. Again it was delivered back on 23/10/07. On 3/12/07 the tractor again broke down. On 7/12/07 it was delivered back by the petitioner after necessary repair works. Petitioner assured respondent no.1 that no further complaint will arise. But on 8/12/07 the vehicle again showed the same trouble and once again it was entrusted to the petitioner. It is further stated that the vehicle is now in the custody of the petitioner. It is also alleged that repeated troubles to the vehicle is the result of the manufacturing defect. Hence, respondent no.1 prayed that petitioner and respondent no.2 be directed to supply a brand new tractor replacing the defective one and to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two lac only) with 12% interest till realization.

(3.) PETITIONER in its written statement has taken the plea that respondent no.2 is the manufacturer of the tractor and petitioner is only the seller being authorized dealer of respondent no. 2. Petitioner has pleaded that respondent no. 2 has filed a detailed reply touching all the factual as well as legal aspects and petitioner do not have any divergent interest in this regard against respondent no. 2. Therefore, petitioner is also adopting all the contentions raised by respondent no.2 on this issue.