By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :

          The complainant’s case is that on 18/2/13 the complainant purchased a Unicon branded vehicle from the respondent  on payment of Rs.77,300/-.  On the very next day it was seen that the battery is leaking and taken the vehicle to the  respondent and serviced.  It was told that no  problem will arise later.  But the same complaint arose within three days.  So on 22/2/13 he had taken the vehicle to the agency again.  Then it was told that to bring the vehicle on the 10^th day for service.  But within the 10 days the piston of the vehicle became defective and oil  kit was broken and leaking was increased.  The gear of  the vehicle became tight and unable to  function.  So on the 10^th day the date given by respondent the complainant had surrendered the vehicle because it was realized that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and wanted to replace the same.  But the respondent did not honour  the claim of complainant.  When contacted with the Thrissur office they also turned against the complaint of complainant.  The Manager of respondent’s institution  misbehaved to complainant.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The averments in the version are that it is true that on 18/2/13 the complainant purchased a unicon motor bike from the respondent.  It is incorrect that  on the next day he had taken the vehicle to respondent with  battery leak.  It is also incorrect  the service requested on 22/2/13.    The complainant approached the respondent for first service only on 18/3/13 after running the vehicle for 2796kms.  At that time the complainant intimated about the defects of battery leak, tight to gear shift, non functioning of fuel meter etc.  The defects were  attended and cured  with the satisfaction of complainant.  The vehicle was brought for the next service on 10/4/13 and at that time the vehicle had run for 3749kms.  At that time he wanted  oil change, water service etc. and complained about  head cover leak and  battery leak.  Those complaints were rectified.  It is incorrect that the vehicle has manufacturing defect.  It is incorrect that the Manager has been misbehaved to complainant and the complainant  made petition to  the Thrissur office of respondent.  The complainant tried to defame the respondent through  internet and failed in that attempt and so this complaint is filed.  This respondent sent registered notice dated 10/5/13 to take back the vehicle but the complainant did not turn up and again registered letter dated 5/7/03 was sent.  The complainant accepted the letters but did not take the vehicle back.  The vehicle is  defectless and ready for delivery.  The complainant can at any time take delivery of the vehicle.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by respondent?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 and Exhibits R1 to R14..

          5. Points:  The complaint is filed alleging defects to the two wheeler vehicle purchased from respondent.  It is the case that on 18/2/13 the complainant purchased unicon motor cycle from Johns Honda for an amount of Rs.77,300/-.  According to him on the very next day the battery became  leaking and consulted the agency.  He would also say that within 3 days of consultation the same complaint  arose and he contacted respondent for servicing.  According to complainant within a  short period of purchase of the vehicle  the piston of the vehicle became  defective, oil kit  was broken and the gear of the vehicle became tight and in a  condition of unable to change.  So he would say that on March 10^th 2013 he had surrendered the vehicle at respondent and demanded to replace new vehicle.  This complaint is filed to get back the cost of the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle.

          6. The respondent filed their detailed version in which they are denying the case of complainant.  It is admitted the purchase of vehicle.  But the complaints stated by complainant and the dates when taken the vehicle for repair etc. are denied by respondent.

          7. The complainant is a person who has conducted his case personally without the assistance of a lawyer.  He has produced six documents and marked as Exhibits P1 to P6.  Exhibit P2 is a sale cum service bill dated 19/2/13 from which it can be seen that on that day the complainant had taken the vehicle to respondent shop.  It is the case of respondent in the version that the vehicle was not taken to respondent on 19/2/13 and the vehicle was brought to the respondent after the purchase on 18/3/13 for first service.  Exhibit P2 would reveal this point of defence of respondent is false.

          8. It is the definite case of complainant that when the vehicle was taken to the respondent  on 22/2/13 they told that to bring the vehicle on 10^th day that will be on 10^th March 2013.  According to him on that day he had surrendered the vehicle.  But it is the case of respondent that on 18/3/13 the vehicle was brought for first servicing and on 10/4/13 again the vehicle was brought for second servicing etc.  But these claims of respondent are seen untrue because the vehicle was surrendered on 10/3/13 itself.  There is no other contrary evidence adduced by respondent to disprove the claim of complainant.  Even if complainant has conducted his case in person the respondent company  Johns Honda has conducted the case by their standing counsel and the respondent can very well adduce oral evidence to prove their documents.  Exhibits R1 to R3 are the alleged job cards issued by respondent on 18/3/13, 10/4/13 and 15/4/13.  It can be considered that these documents were fabricated by respondent for the case purpose.  The respondent can very well examine their witness to prove these documents beyond doubt.  More over in Exhibit R2 the kilometers run shows as 3749.  It is dated 10/4/13 and  in Exhibit R3 the kilometers run stated as 3749 itself and the date 15/4/13.  There is no  explanation about Exhibit R3 in the counter filed by respondent.  If the vehicle was brought for servicing as per Exhibit R2 why the service was conducted on 15/4/13 as per Exhibit R3 is remaining unexplained.  The respondent has no case that after service as per Exhibit R2 the complainant  failed to take back the vehicle and they again  serviced the same on 15/4/13.  There is no explanation for these and  as stated above it can be considered that the job cards are fabricated.

          9. The complainant is alleging manufacturing defect to the vehicle.  It is true that no  expert report is before the Forum.  But the case of complainant and the documents would reveal that the vehicle has got defects.  The documents produced by respondent would also  show that the vehicle has got defects.  So an expert opinion  is not  necessary.  The complainant is a person who had purchased the motor bike for an amount of Rs.77,300/- and according to him the vehicle could not be used because of   defects arose on the very next day itself.  So he wanted to get back the cost of the vehicle or a new vehicle.  The documents produced by the respondent would show that there was Police complaint submitted by respondent against the complainant  and some other disputes were arise between them.  In this circumstance the replacement of new vehicle from the shop and selection of vehicle by complainant from the shop will be not  desirable.  So we are inclined to order  return of cost of the vehicle.

          10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return  Rs.77,300/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand and three hundred only) the cost paid by complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the    6^th day of June            2014.