CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st October, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 30/12/2013
: SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN , MEMBER
CC /1/2014
Kavitha.P.V, : Complainant
D/o.Sathyabhama,
Sunitha Nivas, 2/116(2),
New Kalpathy, Palakkad- 678 003.
(By Adv.N.N.Praseeda)
Vs
1. HR/Customer Care Manager, : Opposite parties
Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Limited.,
Village Kherki Dhaula,
Badshapur, NH-8 Link Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(By Adv.Ramachandran.E)
2. Pannivelil Motors Pvt.Ltd,
N.H-47, Bye Pass, Chandranagar,
Palakkad-14,678 007
(By Adv.P.N.Vinod )
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant had purchased a Suzuki Swish 125 model on 25/10/2013 as per invoice No. V 713 . She alleges that at the time of taking delivery from the showroom itself she fell down towards the right side due to the defect in the vehicle and thereafter on several occasions and also the vehicle is having starting troubles. The first service of the vehicle was done on 25/11/2013. On 1/12/2013 she met with an accident at Mankurussi and she fell down towards the right side and incurred serious injuries. She alleges that the accident happened due to the defects in the break of the vehicle and also due to the manufacturing defect. She further states that the people who gathered at the time of accident on the road examined the vehicle and told that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. On 04/12/2013 she approached the 2nd opposite party and told that she need accident repairs to be done to the vehicle and also requested assistance for claiming insurance for the said repairs. Subsequently she informed the 1st opposite party through registered notice but no reply was received from them. Hence the complainant had approached before this forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to grant Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered due to the deficiency of service by not replacing the vehicle which had manufacturing defects along with such other reliefs that may deem fit and proper to grant.
After accepting notice from the Forum opposite parties filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. They alleges that the complaint is filed without any bonafides. Opposite parties admits that the complainant had purchased a scooter from the 2nd opposite party. There are no defects to the scooter as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. The first service has been carried out by the 1st opposite party free of cost and the complainant has not alleged any such defects at the time of the said service. The opposite parties submits that the complainant fell on the road on 25/11/2013 due to her rash and negligent driving. Thereafter, on 4/12/2013 she came to the 2nd opposite party and told that she need accident repairs to be done and also need assistance to get her insurance claim for the repairs. The 2nd opposite party told her to bring the necessary papers for claiming insurance. Even though she promised that she would bring the papers, she fail to do so, and informed the 1st opposite party that she is out of station for few days and that she will bring it immediately on return. Since she did not turn up, she was informed in writing by the 1st opposite party on 27/12/2013 that unless and until the papers are submitted, they would not be able to carry out the accident repair. To the surprise of the 2nd opposite party, they received a reply from the complainant stating false allegation that the accident happened due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The opposite parties submits that there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. Each vehicle of the 2nd opposite party reaches the market only after strict quality control check. The opposite parties are prepared to send the vehicle of the complainant to any qualified automobile expert for verification whether there is any manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. The entire allegations made in the complaint are false and without any basis. The opposite parties has no liability to pay any amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant is bound to take back the vehicle from the opposite party which she has entrusted for accident repairs on the promise that she will bring insurance papers to claim insurance for the repairs or else she will be liable to pay demurrage charges to the 2nd opposite party @ Rs.100/- for each day of default in taking back the vehicle. Hence, the complaint had to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and the opposite party filed questionnaire to the complainant based upon the chief affidavit. Complainant filed answers to the questionnaire. Opposite parties also filed affidavits along with documents. Ext.A1 to A7 was marked from the part of the complainant. Ext.B1-B4 was marked from the part of the opposite parties. Complainant filed application for appointment of an expert commission to inspect with regard to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Application was allowed. Expert had inspected the vehicle and filed a detailed report. Complainant filed objections to the Commission report. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. Complainant filed another application for examination of expert commissioner, application was allowed and the commissioner was cross examined by the complainant as CW1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the complainant’s vehicle as alleged?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that the accident happened due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. People who gathered at accident site examined the vehicle and told that vehicle is having manufacturing defects. To prove the above allegation commission was taken out and a report was filed before the forum. According to the commissioner’s report The vehicle KL 9 AG 115 Suzuki Swish Scooter does not have any non-stability problems nor any non-balance problems and is performing normally on all types of road conditions there are no mechanical defects in the vehicle KL 9 AG 115 Complainant had filed objections to the Commissioner’s report stating that since the vehicle was kept idle, the report is not reliable. To prove the said facts the complainant had examined the expert commissioner. But during examination also the commissioner had stated that no damages were noted for the vehicle during examination. No mechanical defect was found in the vehicle at the time of inspection. From the above observation it can be inferred that there is no manufacturing defects with regard to the complainant’s vehicle as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had failed to prove the allegations as stated in the complaint. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
The complainant had stated that after the accident she entrusted the vehicle for repairs to 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party submits that they asked the complainant to bring the necessary papers for claiming insurance, but she failed to produce it. So they were helpless and could not assist her for claiming insurance amount. In such circumstances we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
In view of the above findings third issue need not be looked into. In the result we are of the view that complaint is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-/ Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-/
V.P. Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Invoice No.V 713 dtd. 25/10/2013
Ext.A2– Two wheeler policy certificate of insurance cum schedule of IFFCO-TOKIO
Ext.A3-Original Driving licence of Complainant
Ext.A4- Brochure of IndusInd Bank Limited
Ext.A5- Certificate of Registration
Ext.A6-Letter dtd.4/12/2013
Ext.A7-Postal receipts
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- The job card dtd.25/11/2013 relating to the complainant’s vehicle
Ext.B2- The job card dtd.5/12/2013 relating to the complainant’s vehicle
Ext.B3- The copy of the letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
dtd.27/12/2013
Ext.B4 - The reply issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
dtd.15/01/2014
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
C1-Commission Report (Ramesh.M.Gopalan)
CW1-Ramesh.M.Gopalan
Cost Allowed
No cost.
