KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 171/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 17.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 209/2014 of CDRF, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Ashraf, K.S.M., Green Electric Bike, Near Sub Treasury, Kuthuparambu Road, Panoor-670 692, Kannur.

(By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. K.A. Abdul Shukkoor, K.C. House, Near Post Office, P.O. Sivapuram, via Mattannur-670 702.

2. Green Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Showroom Marketing Office, 51, Hope College Corner, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-341 004.

3. K.K. Abdul Kadder, Managing Partner, KSM Green Motors, Near Sub Treasury, Kuthuparamba Road, Panoor-670 692, Kannur.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A: MEMBER

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 209/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (District Forum for short).  1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd & 3^rd respondents are the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. 

2.  The case of the 1^st respondent/complainant is as follows:  The complainant is an electric worker and he purchased a Green electric bike from the 1^st opposite party on 07.08.2013 by paying an amount of Rs. 40,000/-.  After one month of its purchase the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party for service.  The complainant noticed some oil leakage in the vehicle and informed the same to the 1^st opposite party.  After inspection of the vehicle the service advisor informed him that the spare is not available and the spare part has to come from the 2^nd opposite party.  After two weeks the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party and the complaint was not yet rectified.  The complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party and demanded for a new vehicle.  The opposite parties have not considered the grievance of the complainant.  Hence the complainant preferred the complaint before the District Forum. 

3.  The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The complainant is not having any cause of action against the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had not availed any service from the 1^st opposite party.  Since no service is availed there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party became the partner of KSM Green Motors only on 17.04.2014, whereas the case of the complainant was that he purchased the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party on 07.08.2013.  Thus from the case of the complainant itself it is proved that there is no nexus between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party at the time of the alleged incident/cause of action.  The 1^st opposite party also pleaded the non-joinder of necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  After filing the version of the 1^st opposite party the complainant impleaded the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer and the 3^rd opposite party the Managing Partner of KSM Green Motors. The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte and 3^rd opposite party filed version denying the allegation raised by the complainant against them. 

5.  The District Forum recorded the evidence.  On the side of the complainant Exts. A1 to A6 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.  After recording the evidence and hearing of the parties the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 40,000/- being the value of the electric bike and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.  Aggrieved by the above said order the 1^st opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal. 

6.  The appellant raised the objection that there was no privity of contract or any sort of nexus between the complainant and the appellant at the time of the alleged purchase or at the time of the alleged cause of action.  The District Forum without considering this aspect passed the impugned order.

7.  The appellant further argued that no cogent evidence was adduced by the complainant to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle which needed total replacement or refund of the entire amount.  No expert evidence was adduced in the case in order to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount due to the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. 

8.  The main contention raised by the appellant in this case is that the complainant/1^st respondent had purchased the vehicle on 07.08.2013.  But the 1^st opposite party became a partner of KSM Green Motors only on 17.04.2014.  Hence 1^st opposite party has no liability regarding the purchase and other consequent matters.  But no evidence was adduced by them to prove that contention. 

9.  On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and documents the complainant has proved his case before the District Forum and the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service from the side of all opposite parties.  Accordingly the District Forum allowed the complaint. The findings of the District Forum are as follows: 

“It is the responsibility and obligation of the opposite parties to distribute and sell defect free vehicle in all respects to the complainant.  Whenever brand new product is sold to a customer, there is an implied contract that the product sold does not suffer and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.  In this case, it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects or to replace the electric bike during the warranty period.  The Ext. A4 is the owners’ manual of the opposite parties stating that the motor and controller of the Green Electric Bike having a 720 days warranty.  Even though opposite parties have failed to rectify the vehicle of the complainant during the warranty period, this trend or attitude on the part of the opposite parties are not proper.  Consumer is considered as a king.  The service provider should see that the consumer is satisfied with the product.  The image and credibility of the company will be lost if a defective vehicle is marketed and sold.  The service provider and business organization shall feel the pain of the customer and take necessary steps to solve their problem and thereby maintain a cordial relationship with them.  Thus from the document produced by the complainant i.e. Ext. A1 to A6 it is clear that the electric bike purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties is defective one, complainant is entitled for repair or replacement within warranty period”.

On the basis of these findings, the District Forum allowed the complaint. 

10.  The findings of the District Forum are correct and therefore we confirm the order passed by the District Forum in this case.  The grounds of appeal memorandum are not maintainable and sustainable.  The 1^st opposite party has not produced anything to prove their contention that at the time of purchase of the vehicle he was not the dealer of the vehicle.  He joined as a partner only after the transaction date.  This argument of the 1^st opposite party/appellant is not maintainable.  In a partnership firm all partners are equally liable. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No order of costs.

The amount of Rs. 23,500/- deposited by the appellant before this Commission at the time of filing the appeal shall be adjusted towards the ordered amount.  The 1^st respondent/complainant has the right to withdraw the amount on proper application.   

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                                 BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER