KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO. 801/12

JUDGMENT DATED:31.10.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

Hero Electric,                      

Hero Nagar, G.T. Road,                                                    : APPELLANT

Ludhiana-141 003,

Punjab-State.

(By Adv: Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)

            Vs.

1. Jaisy John,

W/o Sebastian.C.J,

Chembalayil House,

Near Seed Farm,

Thavanoor.P.O, Thavanoor,

PIN-679 573, Malappuram Dist.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

1. Prasanth,

Dealer, Auto Masters E Bikes,

T.P. Complex, Tanur Road,

Naduvilangadi, Tirur-7,

Malapuram Dist.

(By Adv: Sri. A. Abdulla Sait)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 2^nd  opposite party in CC.86/10 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 24, 2012 directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

The first opposite party is the authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party.  On May 17, 2009 complainant purchased an Electric Bike from the first opposite party for Rs.31,500/-.  There was one year warranty and 3 free service within 6 months.  On August 15, 2009 the vehicle suddenly stopped on the road.  On her information the first opposite party rectified the defect on September 09, 2009.  Again the same defect occurred on February 02, 2010.  On February 15, 2010 the technician named Mr.Ramesh of the first opposite party inspected the vehicle and stated that the censor on the back wheel of the vehicle was damaged.  He took the back wheel of the vehicle to his service centre for replacing the censor with a new one.  But till now it was not returned.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming refund of the price of the vehicle and compensation.

  3.    First opposite party Mr.Prasanth, Dealer, Auto Masters E Bikes, Malappuram, Tirur is the authorized agent of 2^nd opposite party, M/s Hero Electric, Ludhiana.  They filed separate versions contending thus before the Forum.  It is admitted that complainant purchased the said vehicle from the first opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the second opposite party.  It is also admitted that on 15.08.2009 the first opposite party repaired the vehicle and that on 02.02.2010 there was some defect in the censor of the back wheel of the vehicle.  When the technician of the first opposite party approached the complainant to install the censor of the bike complainant never allowed him to enter the house.  Therefore there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

4.      Complainant represented by her husband filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5 and the opposite party filed counter affidavit but produce no documents before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  Second opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6.      It is admitted that complainant purchased an electric bike from the first opposite party who is the authorized agent of the manufacturer second opposite party on May 17, 2009 for Rs.31,500/-.  It is also not disputed that the vehicle became defective on February 02, 2010 which was repaired by the first opposite party and that it was again became defective on August 15, 2009.  On inspection by the technician of the first opposite party it was found that there was some defect in the censor of the back wheel it was taken to the service centre of the first opposite party.  The case of the opposite party is that when the technician of the first opposite party went to install the censor on back wheel of the vehicle complainant refused.  But there was no evidence to substantiate the same.  It is within the warranty period the defects occurred to the vehicle.  That being so there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.      Complainant claimed refund of the price of the vehicle but she has used it for 9 months.  Therefore Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- which appears reasonable.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.3000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.