DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th   day of March 2012

Present  : Smt.Seena H, President

             : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

             : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member      Date of filing :  12/08/2011

                                                (C.C.No.135/2011)                             

K.C.Scaria,

S/o.Cheriyan,

Kalarikkal House,

Koomankadu,

Tattamangalam,

Palakkad.                                            -        Complainant

(By Adv.A.K.Joseph)

V/s

1.General Manager  ,

   Hero Honda Motors Ltd.,

   34, Community Centre,

   Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

   New Delhi – 110 057

(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)

2.The Manager,

   Adithya Auto Sales,

   18/734, Yakkara Road,

   Palakkad

(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)

3.General Manager,

   Exile Industries Ltd.,

   Devli Building,

   1^st Floor,

    Labour Colony Road,

    Thammanam, Cochin.

(By Adv.Anoopkumar.N)

4.General Manager,

    Exile Industries Ltd.,

    59E, Chowrangee Road,

    Kolkota – 7002020        

(By Adv.Anoopkumar.N)                      -       Opposite parties

O R D E R

            By  Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER

Facts of the case in brief:

The complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter from the 2^nd opposite party on 15/7/2010. Registration No.of the said scooter is           KL-9-Y-9511. The scooter was regularly serviced by the 2^nd opposite party. Immediately after the 3^rd service, that was on 6/5/11, silencer complaint and starting complaint had taken place.  When it is informed to the 2^nd opposite party they removed the battery under the pretext that the battery is sending to the 3^rd opposite party  for service. Complainant is a senior citizen, he can’t start the scooter by kick. So he had handed over the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 24/5/11. The 2^nd opposite party had not done the service properly and also not in time.  Even after sending the battery to the 3^rd opposite party they delayed the service for many weeks. Since the vehicle was with the 2^nd opposite party he could not do his business from 20/5/11 to 16/6/11. Thus the complainant had lost more than Rs.14,000/- as income. Complainant spent Rs.500/- for transporting the scooter to the 2^nd opposite party and  Rs.500/- as traveling expenses  for this purpose. 1^st opposite party fixed the battery manufactured  by IVth opposite party. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part. So all the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant claiming a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as loss of income, monetary loss and compensation for mental agony and physical hardships along with the cost of the proceedings.

All the opposite parties  entered appearance and filed version denying the contentions put forwarded by the complainant.

Opposite party 1 & 2 submits that the scooter was brought for its 3^rd free service on 6/5/11 and it was serviced by mechanics of 2^nd opposite party and after the service the vehicle was returned to the complainant. The complainant again  brought the scooter to the 2^nd opposite party stating that there was some starting trouble, the defect was duly looked into and it was found that  starting problem was due to defective battery. The battery was removed and the complainant was informed that a new battery would be replaced in his scooter as soon as they get the replacement from the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant agreed the same and took back the vehicle Immediately after removing the old battery from the complainant’s  scooter  the same was handed over to 3^rd opposite party for being replaced with a new battery. 3^rd opposite party replaced the old battery with a new one on 11/6/11 and the same was fitted  on the complainant’s  scooter and the complainant took delivery of the scooter after being satisfied.  3^rd opposite party and IVth opposite party submits that the battery which was fitted in the vehicle of the complainant was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party on   26/5/11. Even though there was no major defects to the battery, on the request of complainant the 4^th opposite party agreed to replace  the same. There was no stock available with the 3^rd opposite party at that time and the new stock arrived on 11/6/11 and the same has been supplied to the dealer on 14/6/11 and the dealer fitted the battery in the vehicle on 15/6/11.  The delivery if any caused not willful and only due to the reasons which is beyond the control of these opposite parties. There is no negligence on the part of opposite parties and pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Complainant, opposite party 1 and 2 filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 – A2 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.                   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2.                   If so, what is the relief and cost ?

The complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter from 2^nd opposite party on 15/7/10. The Registration No.of the scooter is KL-9-Y-9511. These facts are evident from Ext.A1 and A2 document. The complainant admits that the scooter was regularly serviced by the 2^nd opposite party. After the third service some troubles had taken place as silencer complaint and starting complaint. The scooter was taken to 2^nd opposite party on 20/5/11. 2^nd opposite party removed the battery for sending the battery to 3^rd opposite party for service. The old battery which was fitted in the vehicle of the complainant, was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party on 26/5/11. Even though  there was no major defects to the battery the 4^th opposite party  agreed to replace the same on the request of the complainant. There was no stock available with the 3^rd opposite party at that time. On 11/6/11 the new stock arrived, is evident from B1 document, and the same has been supplied to the dealer on 14/6/11. The dealer fitted the battery in the vehicle on 15/6/11. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 16/6/11. This fact was admitted by the complainant also.  So that we can’t see any considerable delay occurred in replacing of battery by the opposite parties. The complainant entrusted the defective battery with 2^nd opposite party was on 20/5/11. The vehicle was returned to the complainant after replacement of battery on 16/6/11. The grievance of the complainant that he could not use the vehicle from 20/5/11 to 16/6/11 and caused to loss of his income and expenditure for taking the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party etc. are not supported by any documents.

From the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result complaint dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their own cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of March  2012.

   Sd/-

Seena.H

President

     Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

      Sd/-

Bhanumathi A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of vehicle invoice No.M1233 dtd.15/7/10 issued by 2^nd

            opposite party

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of vehicle registration No.KL-09-Y-9511

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Warranty FOC Bill of Exide Industries Ltd. Cochin dated 11/6/11

Cost Allowed

No cost allowed.