MALABAR MOTORS Vs. K.V. JAYARAJAN AND ANR.

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. 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 16.2.2007 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 12.5.2007. 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 16.5.2007 stating that defect was to the gearbox and necessary repairs have been done and no further complaints would arise. But again on 24.8.2007 the vehicle showed the same trouble in an aggravated form and same was again entrusted to the petitioner. Tractor was delivered back on 27.8.2007 on the pretext that all the repairs have been done. Again on 20.10.2007 due to the same trouble the vehicle broke down again and the vehicle was entrusted to petitioner. Again it was delivered back on 23.10.2007. On 3.12.2007 the tractor a gain broke down. On 7.12.2007 it was delivered back by the petitioner after necessary repair works. Petitioner assured respondent No. 1 that no further complaint will arise. But on 8.12.2007 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 lacs only) with 12% interest till realization.

(2.) 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 does 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.

(3.) DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, Kerala (for short, 'District Forum'), vide order dated 31.12.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,52,000 being cost of the vehicle along with Rs. 50,000 as compensation.