DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 19/06/2020
CC/61/2020
Kumaran, - Complainant
S/o. Narayanan,
Mahalivattathu, Kadambur P.O
Ottapalam, Palakkad- 679 515
(By Adv. P. Sreeprakash)
Vs
1. Hero Wheels Moto Hub,
Hero Corner, Ambalappara,
Ottapalam, Palakkad 679 512
2. Hero Moto Corp, Kolangathu - Opposite Parties
Building, Sea Port-Airport Road
Irumbanam, Kochi -682 309.
(By Advs. R.P. Sreenivasan & K.S. Arundas)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1.Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a Hero Maestro Edge 125 motor cycle from the 1st opposite party on 24.01.2020 for a consideration of Rs.83,500/-. On 10.02.2020 ie, within 2 weeks from the date of purchase, the vehicle showed complaints. There was starting problem, and engine would abrupt switch off and the kicker of the vehicle would not restore to its original position. On verification it appeared that some of the metal portion of the vehicle was rusted. There was some unusual sound from front wheel portion of the vehicle. The complainant brought this to the notice of 1st opposite party and insisted for replacement of vehicle which was refused by the 1st opposite party.
2. On 24.06.2020 the complainant filed IA No.97/20 for immediately appointing an Expert Commissioner to inspect the vehicle. The IA was allowed, appointing Sri. Dileep C., Asst.Motor Vehicle Inspector SRTO Ottapalam as the Expert Commissioner and he submitted his report on 27.07.2020. He has summarized the defects/ problems on his inspection as follows.
“ (1) Body screw (8 Nos) are seen rusted.
(2) Kicker of the vehicle is not restoring its position even after starting
the Vehicle.
(3) Rear wheel centre bolt seen rusted.
(4) There is a starting problem occurred when the self start key used.”
He has also reported that above findings are from the physical examination of the vehicle and the actual defect or problem or its reason can be ascertained only after opening the engine as well as other sealed components of the vehicle.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version on 08.09.2020. Opposite party1 is the branch office of opposite party 2. As per the version, the complainant has purchased a scooter from the opposite parties after fully satisfying himself regarding the description, function and sale price. They were selling vehicles only after a number of quality check-ups and road tests. If any defects are detected in check up and road tests, the vehicle will not be delivered to customers. They conducted pre -delivery check up and detailed inspection in the vehicle of the complainant and sold to him since there is no defect.
On 10.02.2020, the complainant contacted the opposite party for availing 1st after sale service and reported starting trouble, abruptly switching off of again and kicker issue. The service engineer inspected the vehicle and found that the said minor defects are due to improper handling/usage. Though, they are not liable for defects occurred due to improper handling/usage, they resolved the minor defects free of cost and handed over the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant acknowledged that he received the motor bike duly serviced to his entire satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant never contacted the opposite parties demanding any service. If he had approached any of the service stations of the opposite parties, they could have attended to any type of complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence there is no cause of action, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.
On 06.01.2021, the opposite parties submitted that they are ready to cure the defects of vehicle for reaching an amicable settlement of the complaint. The complainant filed proof Affidavit on 06.02.2021. On 17.12.2021, opposite parties filed their proof Affidavit. The complainant marked Exhibits A1-A4 and Exhibit C1. Argument notes were filed by both parties.
Issues involved for consideration.
1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle bought by
the complainant from the opposite parties.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in giving service to the complainant
as per the warranty terms.
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on
the part of the opposite parties.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
5. Reliefs, if any.
5. Issue (1) & (2)
The vehicle was purchased on 24.01.2020 and the vehicle was taken for 1st servicing on 10.02.2020. The complainant has acknowledged the satisfactory service of the vehicle on that day. Subsequently, the vehicle was not taken to the opposite party for any service or repair. The opposite party has clearly mentioned in their proof affidavit that they were/are ready to attend to any defect as per the warranty terms. In-spite of this, the complainant has never approached the opposite party again to get the defects rectified as per the warranty terms. The warranty is available for 5 years and still it is valid. Hence the complainant can still approach the opposite party for curing the defects, if any. A per Exhibit C1 the Expert Commissioner has not detected any manufacturing detect in the motor cycle. The complainant has never made any objection to Exhibit C1.
Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations of manufacturing defect.
Further in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Susheel Kumar Gab gotra and another (2006) 4 SCC 644), the Honorable Supreme Court has held that “Where defects in various parts of car were established, direction for replacement of car would not be justified. Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective part alone is called for”.
Going by the same principle, the complainant can still approach the opposite party for rectification of any defect or replacement of any parts as per the warranty terms.
6. Issues 3 & 4
As explained above, the complainant’s plea for replacement of the vehicle and compensation is highly unjustifiable at this juncture and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for. Complainant can approach the opposite party for rectification of the defects.
7. In view of all what is stated above, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of July, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Annexure
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Original Receipt bearing No. 175 dated 24.01.2020.
Ext. A2– Original Receipt bearing No. 182 dated 01.02.2020
Ext. A3– Original Receipt bearing No. 277 dated 07.02.2020
Ext. A4– Original invoice bearing No. 1538 dated 10.02.2020
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Court Exhibits
Commission reports dated 28.07.2020 filed by Sri.Dileep C., AMVI, SRTO, Ottapalam.
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: Not allowed.
