DEEDI AUTOMOBILES Vs. S.SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the opposite party/dealer in OP. 397/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to replace the defective engine with a new engine of the Rear Engine Auto Rickshaw and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Rear Engine Auto Rickshaw from the opposite party. The same was registered on 30.4.1999. It is the contention that within the warranty period, the Auto Rickshaw engine developed complaints. On 10.6.1999, according to him the complaints were reported to the opposite party who made an attempt to rectify. It was not success. Also on 7.7.1999 and 18.12.1999 and other occasions the vehicle was taken to the opposite party. According to him he has spent about 5,000 for repairs and conveyance charges to the opposite party out fit. He has sought for replacement of engine and also compensation of Rs. 5,000.

(3.) THE opposite parties have filed version contending that the complainant has not made any complaints about the engine. It is alleged that the contention that the Auto Rickshaw engine has developed defects on 10.6.1999 is false. No such complaints were made with the opposite parties by the complainant even on 10.6.1999 or on 7.7.1999 and 18.12.1999. It is submitted that the Auto Rickshaw was taken to the opposite parties for routine oil change and for minor mechanical problems which were rectified. Opposite parties have denied liability.