D.O.F:06/01/2014
D.O.O:30/12/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.10/2014
Dated this, the 30th day of December 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ramaprasad.K.C aged 25 years,
S/o Krishna Moorthy,working as a priest,
R/at 4/204(10/185) Bellur G.P
Cherumoola House Kasaragod. : Complainant
(Adv: Padmanabha.K)
And
- Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd (HMSI)
Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3. IMT Manesar, Dist, Gurgaon
Haryana -122 050
Rep: by its Manager
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
- Pace Motors,
Adkathbail, Kasaragod 671121
Rep: by its Manager
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
- Thirumala Honda, Sub dealer of Honda two wheeler
Seetha Lakshmi Complex, Kallara darbe
Puthur – 574202.
Rep: by its Manager : Opposite Parties
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
O R D E R
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to repair the motorcycle in accordance with warranty and compensation and cost of litigation.
Facts of the case in brief as follows:-
The complainant purchased Honda two wheeler on 16/04/2013 from Opposite Party No:1 through its dealer Opposite Party No:2 for Rs. 68560/- which in use complainant noticed that the bike leans to right side while on travel thus posed a threat to the life of the rider. Defect is informed to Opposite PartyNo:2 within one week of purchase but declined to admit the same. Thus complainant approached Opposite Party No:3 and repaired it by replacing the component for consideration. But problem increased. On 05/12/2013 vehicle entrusted to dealer complainant was assured that defect will be repaired but problem continued bike leans to right side on run and threat to life. Complainant submits that warranty promises repair and replacement of defective parts. The complainant suffered financial loss defect not removed. Hence the complaint.
Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed their written version. Opposite Party admitted the purchase of the vehicle by complainant from Opposite Party No:2. Opposite Party No:2 denied this allegation that the bike leans to right side while running posed as a danger within one week of purchase. Opposite Parties attended repairs of the vehicle by service and there is no manufacturing defect and no replacement is necessary. Complainant did not suffer any financial loss. The claim is not correct but vehicle is being run used by the complainant without any difficulty from 2013 onwards to till date without registering the complainant. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination he was cross examined as Pw1, Ext A1 to A10 marked. Ext A1 to A3 are invoice issued by Opposite Party No:2, Ext A4 to A9 bills issued by Opposite Party No:3 Ext A10 is the service book issued by Opposite Party No:1 and C1 is the expert report file of the expert commissioner. Expert commissioner was examined as Pw2. Opposite Party No:2 was cross examined as Dw1.
Considering rival contentions following points arise for consideration:
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle if so which part of the vehicle needs replacement or repair?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party if so what reliefs?
Specific case of the complaint is that the bike he purchased has noticed leans to right side, many attempts were taken to cure the same but not found corrected. But Opposite Parties denied the allegations. The report filed by the expert commissioner, the AMVI on 05/03/2015, shows that vehicle completed its journey of distance of 19257Kms and physical condition of the vehicle corroded prematurely especially fuel tank and chassis frame, fork handle pipe alignment defective and bearing of the fork assembly is defective and it is manufacturing defects which can be solved only by replacing the fork assembly as a whole. He examined as Pw2 he admitted that he has not opened the fork assembly during inspection to know whether really there is defect.
Dw1 while examination, there is no suggestion that fork assembly needs replacement or any other defect or there is any deficiency in service expect suggestion that warranty is for two years. The complainant taken steps for the inspection of the vehicle by the time it has already completed 19257Kms and after the warranty if any is available to the party either before completion of 24000Kms within two year. If expert report is accepted fork assembly requires replacement. The complainant himself has no case that he requires support maintains or service. Ext A2 to A10 documents are all is the year 2013 during August to December.
Furthermore Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation since there is deficiency in service by selling vehicle with defects it is unfair trade practice complainant is seeking only for rapir and not replacement of parts or replacement of vehicle and hence complainant should produce the vehicle to the dealer Opposite Party No:2 at Kasaragod within one month of the receipt of the order and complainant is liable for compensation for deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed. Complainant is directed to produce the vehicle bearing registration No: KL- 14N 1924 bike to the dealer Opposite Party No:2 at Kasaragod within one month from date of receipt of order and Opposite Party No 2 is directed to repair the vehicle and clear defect. If replacement of fork assembly informed absolutely necessary inform manufacturer Opposite party No:1 and replace the defective part if any namely fork assembly in case it is required. Opposite Party No:1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Opposite Party no:1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation cost. Time for compliance of the order is 30 days from date of receipt of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1to A3 – Invoice
A4 to A9- Bills
A10-Service book
C1. Inspection report
Witness Examined
Pw1. Ramaprasad.K.P
Pw2. P.T Padmalal
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
