D.O.F:31/12/2020
D.O.O:01/10/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.184/2020
Dated this, the 01th day of October 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ramachandran Nair.K
S/o. K. Thamban Nambiar (L)
Kanathil House
Chuttuvam, Pudukai (P.O) : Complainant
Nileshwar (Via) Kasaragod
And
1. C. K. Padmanabhan. Nambiar
Managing Director
C.K.P Trade links : Opposite Party
State Dealers in victory E- Rikshaw & Scooty
Markz Building, Kanichira Nileshwar.
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The complaint was filed by Sri. Ramachandran Nair is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party as they failed to provide proper service to the complainant after sale of an electric scooty. The brief facts in this complaint is that the complainant has purchased an electric scooter from opposite party for Rs. 65, 000/- on 30/01/2020. Within three months of purchase it become defective. The complainant has entrusted the scooty for repair with Opposite party. After examining the scooty, opposite party informed the complainant that some of the spare parts of the scooty has to be replaced and order is placed for new spare parts. The complainant contacted the opposite party after few days to know the progress of the work. Opposite party informed that the spare parts ordered was not yet received. Hence substituted the spare parts of another scooty and returned the vehicle to the complainant. But that spare parts was also defective. Thereafter the brake system of the scooty become defective. When the complainant again visited the opposite party’s shop CKP Trade Links to cure the defects of scooty it was not there. Instead another shop “Samudhra salt and drinking water” was functioning there. On enquiry it is revealed that opposite party is the Owner of that Shop. As per the direction of Opposite Party, the scooty was given to the nearest local mechanic. On examination the mechanic informed that the spare parts has to be changed and thus he cured the defects. Now the Scooty has no speed at all. Complainant has contacted the opposite party many times, but the defect is not yet cured. The scooty has three years warranty. On purchasing the scooty from opposite party’s shop complainant has undergone severe mental physical and financial stress. The scooty is not in a position to use now as the speed of the scooty is gradually reducing after starting, due to which complainant suffered financial loss and mental and physical stress. Hence the complainant is seeking refund of the price of the scooty with compensation and cost of proceedings.
Notice to the opposite parties served but they did not turned up. No version filed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and the documents marked (Ext A1 to A3). Ext A1 is the invoice of opposite party issued on 30/01/2020 for an amount of Rs 65000/-. Ext A2 is the Brochure of opposite party regarding Victory Scooty. Ext A3 is the Booking receipt form issued by Opposite Party.
Chief affidavit and documents perused and heard the complainant.
The main questions raised for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issue No: 1 and 2 can be discussed together.
Ext A1 to A3 produced before us proves the purchase of the vehicle from opposite party by complainant for an amount of Rs 65,000/-. The chief affidavit filed by the complainant alleges that the scooty became defective within three months of purchase. And it is repaired and the spare part has to be replaced. The opposite party informed the complainant that new spare parts are ordered. Thereafter opposite party replaced with available spare parts which was also defective.
In the absence of rebuttal evidence complainant’s case stands proved. So we are of the opinion that the mental agony and the financial loss suffered by the complainant has to be compensated. Opposite party must assure the quality of the vehicle before sale. Moreover as the seller of the vehicle he is responsible to cure the defects within warranty period when complaint arises. Here Opposite Party totally failed to cure the defects of the vehicle on all occasions. Repeating complaints shows that the real issue is not cured. After spending huge amount to purchase the vehicle the complainant is not in a position to use the vehicle due to the irresponsible attitude of opposite party. The complainant approached Opposite Party many times with severe complaints of the vehicle but those complaints were not properly cured. After opening the new shop, when complainant approached opposite party with speed complaints he directed the complainant to a local mechanic. The act of Opposite Party proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the price of the vehicle with compensation and cost.
In the result complaint is allowed directing opposite party to refund Rs 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) with interest 8% from date of purchase till realization with Rs 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Brochure
A3- Booking Receipt
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
