Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/75/2014

Ataullah M Tanekham. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Genaral Manager of Vanisha Auto Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

C.K.Kulkarni.

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to replace new motorcycle or to pay the cost of the vehicle of Rs.49,864/- with interest @ 18%, to pay Rs.10000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.5000/- cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      Brief facts of the case are as under:

          The case of the complainant is that, the complainant has purchased the motorcycle from the respondent.1 manufactured by the respondent.2 under invoice no.INI 300966 dtd.27.05.2013. Due to defective fork the vehicle was sidelining towards the left side which was due to manufactural defect. Hence, the complainant approached the respondent.1 and narrated to set right the same but not set righted. As the complainant plied the same he suffered pain in the arms. In that regard the complainant produced medical certificate. Since the respondents did not set right the defects lastly complainant got issued legal notice on 19.11.2013, calling upon to set righted the same otherwise to replace or otherwise to pay the amount. Except issuing evasive reply on 30.11.2013 the respondents neither repaired nor replaced which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.      In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail. The respondent.1 in his detailed written version admits purchase of the vehicle and averred, the complainant taken delivery of the said vehicle after pre delivery inspection and after expressing his satisfaction. While the answering respondent denied approaches of complainant on several times and non attending defects as alleged by the complainant. Though the answering respondent denied the complaint averments in toto admits approaches of the complainant for general check ups and attending the services and also replacement of the pivot arms and fork as per the job card dtd.13.12.2013 and asserted there is no deficiency in service as alleged and also denied consultation of orthopedic surgeon and also denied and disputed medical certificates produced by the complainant and averred the said allegation is made in order to have wrongful gain and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The respondent.2 also admits the written version in the same line as the respondent.1 admits the written version and averred the respondent is a designated, reputed manufacturer of brand Activa motor vehicles and denied the manufactural defects and also defects alleged by the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

6.      Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Apart from argument both have filed notes arguments.   Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively
2. Affirmatively
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

7.      On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant had purchased the motor vehicle in question manufactured by therespondent.1 through the respondent.2. As per the own admission of replacement of pivot arms and fork by therespondent.1 it is evident that the said motor vehicle was suffering from defective parts and subsequently the respondent.1 after taking into note of the defects has replaced the same. This fact also admits by the complainant and at the time of argument the complainant clearly admits at present the vehicle is running smoothly without any problem.

8.      At the time of argument the complainant clearly disclaim the replacement and refund of the amount as prayed in his prayer column but the complainant restricts his claim only with respect to physical sufferings viz., pain in the left elbow due to driving of 2 wheeler as per certificate which is marked as Ex.C3 issued by doctor and prays for compensation for his sufferings.  Though the complainant relied on Ex.C3 he did not adduce any medical evidence. So also the respondent in support of their contention that the complainant relied on false medical certificate to have wrongful gain did not adduce rebuttal evidence to the Ex.C3. Under those circumstances this Forum has no other option but to accept version of the complainant in support of Ex.C3 even in the absence of medical witness evidence. Under those circumstances the complainant is entitled for the relief with respect to the sufferings.

9.      In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively.

10.    Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

          The complaint is partly allowed. The respondents.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for sufferings and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from there on till realization.

 

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 27^th day of April 2015)

                         Member                       President