SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

       This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to  replace the defective  motor cycle with a new one or  to return the value of the  vehicle   along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost to the complainant  for the  deficiency of service on their part.

   The case of the complainant in brief:

     The complainant is  working as a mechanic by profession attached to PVS Ford Kannur.  The complainant had intended to purchase a two wheeler to travel his work place from his home.  As per the advertisement given by the Ops in various news papers and other medias the complainant  decided to purchase a Honda Unicom motor cycle.  Then the complainant approached 2^nd OP’s showroom on 11/10/2017 and he purchased a  Honda CB Unicom motor cycle from 2^nd OP with the financial assistance of Muthoot Fin Corp Ltd and the total purchase price of the vehicle is Rs.74663/- and including other extra fittings the total value comes to Rs.85,000/-. On the 2^nd day of the purchase of the vehicle , the complainant had felt some balancing problem in the handle of the vehicle and the handle was seen shaking.  Immediately the complainant approached the PDI section of the showroom and enlighted the defect to  show room executive, he  checked the  handle of the vehicle and noticed that the thread of the handle was missing and changing the thread, the problem  can be solved.  The complainant entrusted the vehicle to 2^nd OP’s service centre as per their request.  The vehicle was returned  by the service centre by making the  complainant believed that the thread was changed and on the verification of the complainant it was noticed that to tighten the handle the service centre inserted some papers into thread of  the handle.  When the vehicle was used slowly the handle problem was again shown by the vehicle.  After the 1^st service the complainant noticed that there was an oil leak from the engine of the  vehicle and also hearing some uneasy sound from the back suspension of the vehicle and its mudguard.  When the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after service on the next day  the service engineer told the complainant that  the leak was due to the problem of gasket and the gasket was changed.  But after using the vehicle the same defect of oil leak  and unnecessary sound  from the back of the vehicle and vibrating sound from the visor of the vehicle.  According to the  opinion  of the expert that the defects occurred only due to manufacturing defect or is involved  in any accident  before delivering the vehicle to the complainant.  3^rd OP informed the complainant that the vehicle was repaired and asked to take  delivery of the vehicle.  But the complainant verified the vehicle it was seen that  gasket leakage was not properly repaired.  They did not change defective gasket and vibrating visor of the vehicle.  The act of the Ops the complainant and his family caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service  on the part of  Ops.  Hence the complaint.

   After filing the complaint  notice issued to all Ops.  Ops 2&3 entered appearance before the

commission and filed their written version. Ops 2&3 admitted that 2^nd OP is the authorised dealer and 3^rd OP is the  authorised service centre of 1^st OP, the manufacturer of  the vehicle.  Ops 2&3 contended that the vehicle was brought to the  service centre for the 1^st time for the free service on 25/10/2017 and  by the time the vehicle ran 960kms.  The vehicle was again brought to the service centre on 6/11/2017 with a complaint of oil leak.  At that time the vehicle  ran 1801 kms.  The vehicle was again brought to the service centre on 15/11/2017 with complaints of valve cover gasket leakage, front shock abnormal sound  and rear shock sound.  At that time the vehicle ran 2210kms.  The vehicle was thoroughly inspected and the defects were rectified under warranty.  But the complainant was not ready to take delivery of the vehicle.  So this OP send a registered letter to complainant on 25/11/2017 informing that the vehicle already repaired under warranty and requested him to take delivery of the vehicle.  Moreover, OP states that no defects  to the motor cycle.  There is no  deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  Ops are not liable to replace the vehicle or to pay any amount as compensation to the complainant.  There is no manufacturing defect also.  The   complaint may  be dismissed with cost.

      On the  basis of the rival contentions in the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief and cost?

3. Relief and cost?

        The   evidence consists   of the  oral testimony of PWs 1&2  and  Exts.A1 to A6 were marked.  From the  side of Opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 marked.

       Both sides filed argument note before the commission to raise their contentions also.

Issue  No.1.

     The complainant adduced evidence  by  submitting   his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of  his  examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  PW2  one technician also examined on complainant’s side to prove his case. PWs1&2 was cross examined by Ops.  PW1 relied  on Exts.A1 to A6  documents also to substantiate his case.   Ext.A1 is the  tax invoice dtd.7/10/2017 which clearly shows that the purchase price of the vehicle’s grand total Rs.74,663/-.  In his evidence PW1 states that  h­n Cd¡n 2þmw Znhkw sIm­pt]mbn hÀ¡v tjm¸n ImWn¨p F¶Xn\v tcJbnÃ.  25/10/2017 \v sImSp¯ tcJbp­v.  job card  Â  oil complaint  ]dªn«p­v.  In Ext.B1 also noted  the complaints engine oil change,visor vibration dtd.25/10/2017 and free service No.1^st,K.M Run 960.  As per Ext.A5(series) clearly shows that the complainant obtained loan from Muthoot capital services and the vehicle is hypothecated to the said institution.  As per Ext.A6 is the  loan closure letter and NOC from the Muthoot Capital dtd.3/1/2019.  Moreover in the evidence of PW2 states that   PDI check sN¿msX  h­n  delivery  \S¯nbXpsIm­mWv  complaint h¶Xv. h­nbpsS handle sâ tee icnbmbn fit sN¿m¯XpsIm­mWv Cu complaint h¶Xv.  km[mcW ]pXnb hml\¯n\v C¯cw complaint D­mImdpt­m?  Ans : Cà . Moreover he stated that  ]cmXn¡mc³ F´v complaint BWv ]dªXv?  Ans  Oil leak and unnecessary sound  Ds­¶mWv ]dªXv. But in DW1’s evidence he deposed that 7/10/2017 \v  \n§Ä FhnsSbmWv tPmen sNbvXXv. 2-mw FXyI£n Øm]\¯nse service section  Â BWv tPmen sNbvXXv.  A¶v complainant \v  supply sNbvX hml\¯nsâ condition s\ ¸än F\n¡v ]dbm³ ]änà . km[mcW Hcp h­n delivery Ignªv 1000KM  IgnªmWv 1^st service \v hcnI. Asæn 30   Znhkw Ignªv.  km[mcW ]pXnb h­n¡v Cu XIcmdpIÄ H¶pw ImWnà    As per Ext.B1 clearly shows that only 960km run and 1^st date of repair was 25/10/2017.  Moreover PW2 stated that h­n Ct¸mÄ company bn BWv DÅXv. 2017 apX D]tbmKn¡m¯XpsIm­v h­n¡v \nc´cw ]Wn h¶psIm­ncn¡pw.    DW1 stated that as per Ext.B3 he send a letter to PW1 to take delivery of the vehicle from 3^rd OP’s service centre he repaired the vehicle.  But the complainant is not ready to take delivery  of the vehicle  because after the purchase  of the vehicle within  one month  3 times he produced the vehicle to 3^rd OP for repairing the defects.  So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  Ops.  Hence the issue No.1  found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

   As discussed above the complainant purchased the vehicle  on 7/10/2017 for an amount of Rs.74663/-. But on 25/10/2017 the complainant produced the  vehicle  before the  3^rd OP for repairing the oil leak and visor vibration and  he stated that some manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  As per the 1^st free service the Ext.B1 shows  960km run the vehicle.  After the purchase of the vehicle within  the period of one month the complainant produced the vehicle  3 times  before  the Ops for repairing the defects.  But Ops stated  after repairing the vehicle the complainant  is not ready to taken delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant is not satisfied the repairing work done by the Ops.  In the year 2017 onwards the vehicle is under the custody of Ops guarage.  Now the complainant is  not ready to take  delivery of the vehicle.  So  we  hold that the opposite parties are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  The act of Ops , the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice .  Therefore we hold that the  1^st OP is liable to  pay the purchase price of vehicle Rs.74663/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issue No.2 &3 are also accordingly answered.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1^st  opposite  party is liable to    pay the value of the vehicle Rs.74663/- to the complainant along with  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost  to the complainant within  30 days of  receipt  of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.74,663/- carries  interest  @9% per annum  from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts:

A1-Purchase bill

A2- Tax invoice dtd.7/10/2017

A3- insurance certificate

A4-RC certificate

A5-loan receipts(6 in Nos.)

A6-NOC from bank(2inNos.)

B1&B2 -Job card dtd.25/10/17,6/11/17

B3- copy of letter addressed to complainant

B4-postal receipt.

PW1-Rajaneesh.M-Husband of complainant

PW2-Amrith-witness of complainant

DW1-Rajaneesh.M- witness of OP

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                             Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                      Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR