D.O.F:17/11/2021

                                                                                                   D.O.O:15/03/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    KASARAGOD

        CC.No.209/2021

Dated this, the 15^th day of March 2023

PRESENT:                                                  

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER

Krishnan E.V,

‘Nandavanam’,

Swarna Valli Road,                                                    : Complainant

Near Block Office,

P.O. Nileshwar– 671314

(Adv. C. Damodaran)

                                        And

1. Authorized Signatory,

Vaishnavi Cycle Company,

Opp. Deven Costumes,

Market Road,

Nileshwar – 671 314

2. T.I. Cycles of India,                                         : Opposite Parties

Post Bag.No.5,

M.T.H. Road,

Ambattur, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu – 600 053

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

The brief facts of the case is that the Complainant purchased a cycle from Opposite Party No.1 on 01/11/2021 for Rs. 4,800/- to give it as a birthday gift to his son Vaidyanathan.  After taking delivery of the cycle the child took cycle for a trial run the front wheel got jam.  The child fell down with the cycle and sustained injury.  The frond wheel of the cycle could not be turned at all.  The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 either to repair the cycle or to refund the price. But Opposite party was reluctant to the need of the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint for refund of the price of the cycle with a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and cost.

The Opposite party No.1 personally appeared and filed version according to him he has given free service to the Complainant.  He had contacted the cycle company many times to settle the issue.  The Complainant’s first demand was to replace the cycle.  The cycle company directed Opposite Party No.1 to give a new cycle to the Complainant.  But then the Complainant was not satisfied with the above suggestion.  He claimed for compensation also.  The Opposite Party No.1 was only a dealer and he was unable to give compensation.  Company is not providing warranty or guarantee to cycles.  The cycle purchased by the Complainant had been strongly hit on a wall and the spring of the break thrown out.  The Opposite Party No.1 had given free service cured the defect then only.  Thus, the wheel of the cycle got jam.  The Opposite Party No.1 further requested to exempt him from Opposite Parties array as he is only a dealer.  The Complainant filed IA to implead Opposite Party No.2, the company.  IA is allowed.  Even though the notice is served to the Opposite Party No.2, the remained absent and set exparte.

The Complainant adduced no oral evidence.  The documents  Ext.A1 and A2 are marked.  The Opposite Party filed affidavit and was cross examined as DW1.  Ext.B1 marked.  Both sides heard and argument notes filed by the Complainant.  The issues raised for consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties
2. If so, what is the relief?

In this case complainant purchased cycle from Opposite Party No.1 for his son Vaidyanathan, the child took the cycle for a trial run the front wheel of the cycle got jam.  The boy fell with the cycle sustaining injury.  The wheel could not be turned at all.  The purpose for which the cycle was bought could not be served. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 was only a dealer he contacted the company many times and at last the company agreed for replacement of the cycle.  But the Complainant was not ready for replacement without compensation.  Ext.A1 is the Invoice given by the Opposite Party No.1 on 01/11/2021, Ext.A2 is the Tax invoice.  B1 series are the photos of the cycle.  The complaint’s case is that the cycle is a substandard one which suffered from manufacturing defects.  The Opposite Party argues that the cycle occurred when the child dashed the cycle against a wall.  But there is no evidence for that.  The Opposite Parties are ready for replacement of the cycle but the Complainant demanded compensation also.  The Complainant argue that the Opposite Party sold a defective product, due to which the Complainant suffered mental agony and loss.  Therefore the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation.

We carefully, gone through the affidavit and documents submitted by both parties.  The Opposite Parties in their version suggested that they were ready to replace the cycle.  Considering the facts and situation of the Complainant and Opposite Parties this commission is of the view that there is unfair trade practice and service deficiency in the part of the Opposite Parties.  The replacement of the cycle is a reasonable remedy in this case.  And also the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation.  This commission hold that Rs.3,000/- will be a reasonable compensation.

In the result complaint is allowed directing opposite Parties give a defect free new cycle to the Complainant or refund Rs.4,800/- (Rupees Four thousand Eight hundred only) the price along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards costs.

Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.

     Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Exhibit

A1:  GST invoice

A2:  Tax invoice

B1:  Photos of the Cycle

Witness Cross examined

DW1:  Sureshan. C.V

     Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/