DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 18th day of April 2023
C.C.73/2020
Complainant
Muhammed Ali.P,
S/O. Abdul Samad,
Kandalamal, Nellamkandy,
Koduvally, Vavad-P.O,
Kozhikode Dist.
Kerala - 673 572.
Opposite Parties
1. Continental Motor Work,
Shaaz Building, Chakorathkulam,
Westhill, Kannur Road,
Calicut - 673 005.
2. Parippummal Fijaz,
Korakkachankandy,
Pullookkara –P.O, Peringathoor,
Chokli (Via)
Kannur Dist – 670 672.
3. UM Lohia Two Wheelers Pvt Ltd.,
A-79, DDA Shed Okhla Industrial Area
Phase–2, New Delhi – 110 020.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The first opposite party is the dealer and the third opposite party is the manufacturer of two wheeler model RENEGADE COMMANDO MOJAVE. The second opposite party is the owner of the first opposite party. The bike was purchased by the complainant paying a total sum of Rs.1,87,852/-. The extended warranty for the vehicle was also purchased from the 1st opposite party. The warranty is for 2 years from the date of purchase and the extended warranty is for another 2 years from the expiry of the regular warranty period.
3.The two wheeler started showing problems immediately after its first day of usage. Several technical problems occurred to the vehicle thereafter. During the occurrence of each problem, the complainant used to take the vehicle to the service centre where they could rectify only a few problems out of the long list of problems. Many problems with the vehicle remained unsolved. On 08-01-2019 the complainant took the vehicle to the service centre, but to his surprise, the service centre was seen closed. On enquiry, it was revealed that the service centre was permanently closed down and stopped their service without any information. His attempt to contact the dealer was in vain. Thereafter he contacted the third opposite party through phone and emails many times. But their response was disappointing and they were not ready to arrange an alternate facility for service of the vehicle. A lawyer notice was issued to the second opposite party which was replied with lame excuses. The registered notice issued to the third opposite party was not received by the addressee. The same notice was sent through email, but they did not respond. Technically, this two wheeler is a foreign one and no third party mechanic can repair it due to lack of technical knowledge and spare parts. Presently, the vehicle is not in a running condition and is lying idle. For the bank loan availed, EMI has to be remitted. The complainant was forced to pay an average amount of Rs.380/- per day for his travel due to the inability to use the bike. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and cheating by selling a substandard vehicle giving false promises. Hence the complaint to get back refund of the price along with additional travelling expenses of Rs.11,400/- per month, Rs.34,942/- as interest paid for the loan and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment.
- The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are :
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 were marked.
- Heard.
- Point No.1– The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that the two wheeler sold was a substandard one and it started showing several problems soon after purchase and the service centre was stopped by the opposite parties without any intimation and making any alternate arrangements for service of the vehicle, as a result of which, the vehicle is lying idle.
- PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. It is stated in the affidavit that the complainant purchased the two wheeler by paying a total amount of Rs. 1,87,852/-. The bike is having warranty and extended warranty. The bike showed complaints and on 08-01-2019 when he took the vehicle to the service centre, it was seen closed and he came to know that the service centre was permanently closed down without any intimation and making any alternate facility for the service of the vehicle. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 14-06-2018, Ext.A2 is the extended warranty registration booklet and Ext.A3 is the copy of the registration certificate.
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3.
- The vehicle is having warranty and extended warranty and the problems arose during the warranty period. The evidence shows that the vehicle showed several complaints soon after the purchase and the act of the opposite parties in stopping their services of the already sold vehicle and their inaction to make alternate service facility amounts to gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties are bound to repair the vehicle and make it in a sound working condition or in the alternative, refund the price of the vehicle. The complainant was put to gross mental agony, hardship and inconvenience due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. The complainant is not able to use the vehicle and it is lying idle which compelled him to resort to other modes of travel. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings.
- Point No.2 : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 73/2020 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair the bike bearing registration No.KL-57-S-3533 and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for such repair. In the event of failure of the opposite parties to do so, they shall refund Rs. 1,87,852/- (Rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand eight hundred and fifty two only) to the complainant, being the price of the vehicle. In case of refund of the price, the complainant shall return the vehicle to the opposite parties and effect transfer of ownership accordingly.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 18thday of April 2023.
Date of Filing: 20-02-2020.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 - Invoice dated 14-06-2018.
Ext.A2 - Extended warranty registration booklet.
Ext.A3 - Copy of the registration certificate.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Muhammed Ali.P.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
