Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/817

M/S HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR A C DAVID - Opp.Party(s)

C S RAJMOHAN

31 Oct 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.817/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 31.10.2016

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.420/2014 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur order dated : 31.03.2015)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

M/s. Hero Electric Vehicle Pvt Ltd 50,

Okhla Industrial Estate – III

New Delhi

 

(By Adv.Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)

 

vs

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Dr.A.C.David,

Arimboor House,

ATS Road, Chalissery

 

2.M/s.Kakkasseri Agencies,

Opp.Munsiff Court,

Chavakkad

 

3.M/s.G.K.Motors,

TKS Puram. Kodungallur

 

ORDER

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Appellant is the first opposite party in CC.No.420/2014 in the CDRF, Thrissur. The complainant / first respondent purchased a hero electric vehicle from the agent of the first opposite party. It is alleged in the complaint that three years warranty was provided for the vehicle, two years warranty for the charger and one year warranty for the batteries. It is further alleged in the complaint that the third opposite party the agency from where the vehicle was purchased was wound up. On filing police complaint, the second opposite party agreed to provide service for the vehicle. According to the complainant, the vehicle developed complaint on the first day after purchase itself. Later, problems appeared for the batteries and the vehicle had to be kept idle for 80 days, after which the batteries were replaced. But the problems of the vehicle persisted. Though the problems were reported to the third opposite party several times, they did not solve the problem. The complainant approached the first opposite party through e-mail. But no relief was provided. The vehicle has become completely useless. Though the complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the vehicle through their authorised technicians and to replace the batteries there was no favourable response. Hence the complaint.

        2.     It is seen that after accepting notice there was no representation for the opposite parties including the appellant though the first opposite party filed a version denying the allegations in the complaint. It is further seen that the complainant filed application before the consumer forum and pursuant to the order of the consumer forum, repair work of the vehicle was done and a note signifying satisfaction signed by the complainant was produced before the consumer forum. The said note is marked as Ext.X1. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

        3.     The consumer forum noted that as per Ext.A1 bill the vehicle was purchased from G.K.Motors opposite Peramangalam Police Station but they are not impleaded as party. But complaint was filed against second opposite party for refusing service to the vehicle. No document was produced to show that there was cause of action against opposite parties 2 & 3. The complainant adduced no expert evidence to show that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect. As per the direction of the consumer forum repair work had been done to the satisfaction of the complainant. So the consumer forum rightly observed that the grievance left is that the complainant was forced to spend time and money for filing the complaint to get the defects rectified. So as compensation the consumer forum awarded Rs.5000/- only. No other relief was granted. On the facts and circumstances disclosed, the above conclusion of the consumer forum cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.817/15

JUDGMENT DTD: 31.10.2016

 

                                                                     Be/