IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 134/2015
Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2016.
Petitioners : 1) Ajayakumar K.K.
Koorappillil House,
Kattampack P.O, Njeezhoor
Kottayam - 686 612.
(Adv. Pillai Jayaprakash Raveendran)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Jubily Hero,
Pukadiyil Buildings,
Nagampadom,
Kottayam – 686 006.
(To be represented by its Proprietor)
2) Hero Moto Corp. Ltd.
34, Community Centre,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi – 110057
(To be represented by its Managing Director)
(For OP 1 and 2, Adv. Shiby Alex)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 27/05/2015 is as follows.
The complainant on 20/04/2015 purchased a motor bike and while on journey to his house, when he reached at Kumaranalloor the engine of the said bike was stopped. Then he had informed the matter to the opposite party and a sales person from the opposite party came to the place and took the vehicle to the showroom. After repairing they had deliver the vehicle on 21/04/2015. But on journey, when he reached at Ettumanoor town again the same complaint was occurred and the vehicle was taken to the showroom by a sales person. The very next day on 22/04/2015 the complainant went to the opposite party showroom, inquired about the defects and the staff of the opposite party intimated that the new bike was kept open in the rain while it was delivered by the Company and water has been entered into the engine of the motor bike. And the engine of the new bike has been damaged and they may give another new bike since the vehicle is having guarantee. So as per the direction of the staff of the opposite party, the complainant contacted to the authorities of the opposite party and demanded to replace the bike. But they has not cared to replace the same. According to the complainant, the act of opposite parties in delivering an engine damaged bike amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for the order directing the opposite parties to return the amount or replace the vehicle with compensation.
Opposite parties filed version admitting the purchase of the disputed vehicle for vehicle Rs.61,708/- which is included the price of the vehicle, extra fitting helmet, tax and insurance etc. According to the opposite parties, at the time of delivery they had filled 250 ml petrol only and it was intimated to the complainant. After filling the petrol by the complainant, the vehicle was stopped and on intimation the mechanic of the opposite party arrived at the place. And he had inspected the vehicle and found that water is in the petrol. So the mechanic repaired the vehicle by clearing of the carburetor and started the vehicle. And he intimated to the complainant that if the vehicle is again stopped the vehicle is to be taken to the workshop for clearing the petrol tank and carburetor by removing the entire petrol. After that the vehicle become stopped and the complainant was taken the vehicle to the opposite party. And it was properly repaired by cleaning the petrol tank and carburetor after removing the petrol. But the complainant has not cared to take back the vehicle. He demanded to replace the vehicle with a brand new one. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle is registered by remitting the tax in the name of the complainant and insurance is also taken. So the replacement of the vehicle is not possible. Within warranty period, they are only liable to repair if there is any defects occurred. And the disputed vehicle is not having any defects. According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of both sides and the deposition of the complainant as Pw1. And Ext.A1 and A2 documents from the side of the complainant and Ext.B 1 to B5 documents from the side of opposite parties.
Point No.1
The crux of the complainant’s case is that the newly purchased motor bike of the complainant shows serious complaint on same day while he plying the same. According to the opposite parties, the defect is due to the presence of water in petrol tank. Opposite party contented that the same was due to filling of water mixed petrol by the complainant and the defects were cured by them. Opposite party produced job card and the same is marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 it is stated that on 22/04/2015 the vehicle shown starting trouble the fuel tank of the vehicle is cleared and carburetor also cleared. According to the complainant, after repair on the very same day when he reached at Ettumanoor the engine of the bike become stopped. The said defect and entrustment of the bike to the opposite party were admitted by the opposite parties. According to the opposite party, the defects were due to filling water mixed petrol. From Ext.B1, it can be seen that the fuel tank and carburetor were cleaned by the opposite party. In our view, the subsequent defect after cleaning of the petrol tank and carburetor shows that the vehicle is having some other defects. The serious defects of the bike on the same day of its purchase and subsisting of same defects after repair shows that the motor bike is having manufacturing defects. The act of opposite parties in delivering a bike having manufacturing defects, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due the said act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- Opposite parties are Ordered to replace the defective bike with a new bike of the same model having same features to the complainant OR refund Rs.61,708/-, the price of the bike to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of the litigation to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Bill No.64 dtd.18/04/2015 issued by 1st op.
Ext.A2 : Preliminary information sheet No.13748 issued by 1st op.
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Job card dated 22/04/2015
Ext.B2 : Letter issued by 1st op.
Ext.B3 : Letter dtd/ 14/05/2015 issued by petitioner to 1st op.
Ext.B4 : Copy of temporary registration certificate (KL-05-AB-TEMP-5187)
Ext.B5 : Certificate issued by Engineer
Witness
Pw1 : Complainant
By Order
Senior Superintendent (I/C)
