Complaint filed on: 04-08-2008 <br /> Disposed on: 23-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1720/2008<br /> DATED THIS THE 23rd SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Vani Koka,<br /> Aged about 34 years,<br /> D/o. Sri Gangadhar Rao,<br /> Residing at 1196, G-1,<br /> 2nd stage, 16th Main,<br /> BTM layout, Bangalore-76 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> 1. KINETIC MOTOR COMPANY <br /> LTD., having addressed at <br /> No.D-1 block, Plot No.18/2, <br /> MIDC, CHINCHWAD, <br /> PUNE-411 019<br /> <br /> 2. C.V.S.KINETIC, <br /> # 14, Sankey Road,<br /> (Near Hotel Nandini Deluxe),<br /> Bangalore-560 020<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) in brief is, after going through the publicity issued by the Ops, believing the publicity, she purchased a KINETIC SYM FLYTE a two wheelers vehicle on 21-1-2008 for a sum of Rs.41,773/- from the dealer the 2nd OP, which was manufactured by the 1st OP. From the date of acquiring the vehicle, it had some trouble and was not giving joy ride and within 28 days she was forced to give vehicle for maintenance for five times for repair. The job card is self explanatory as it had oil leakage, abnormal noise sound from the engine, suddenly stopping, starting trouble and low pickup. She was not interested to continue with the vehicle and therefore she left the vehicle with the 2nd OP for repair and for maintenance. That because of this, she was to move for her work in auto losing money and therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to replace the vehicle with a new one and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. The OPs have appeared through their advocate, but only 1st OP has filed version. The 1st OP in the version narrated that two wheelers manufactured by them, are of very good quality and have earned good reputation. All the vehicles after they are manufactured will be checked vigorously with quality control checks. Admitting sale of a vehicle to the complainant through the 2nd OP has stated that warranty will be extended for repair and replacement of certain parts. That the complainant after satisfied herself purchased the vehicle that their competent service engineer inspected the vehicle of the complainant regarding alleged problems and he found the vehicle was perfectly in order and was roadworthy and no defect was found in the vehicle. That the vehicle which was given for repair was repaired and kept ready for delivery. That the complainant had left the vehicle for first free service at 2nd OP on 20-2-2008, necessary service was done and on the same day the complainant was informed to take delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle, despite several reminders. That the complainant has not proved any defect in the vehicle and denying all other allegations of deficiency has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavit evidence, even on behalf of the 2nd OP also. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced Xerox copy of receipt for having paid money to the 2nd OP, copy of owner identification card, copy of warranty registration card and copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops. The 1st OP has produced a copy of job card dated 11-2-2008, 20-2-2008, copy of letter dated 19-8-2008, 28-3-2008 and 13-3-2008 addressed to the complainant. Since both the parties remained absent on the date when the complaint was posted for arguments, they are taken as heard. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the vehicle <br /> manufactured by the 1st OP sold to her by the 2nd <br /> OP is having manufactured defect and the OPs <br /> therefore have caused deficiency in their service <br /> by not replacing it with a new vehicle?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the negative <br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: We find no dispute between the parities, in this complainant having had purchased a two wheeler vehicle manufactured by the 1st OP from the 2nd OP on 26-1-2008 for consideration. The complainant further contended that as if from the date of acquiring the vehicle, the vehicle was giving one or the other trouble and was not giving joy ride and within the span of 28 days that vehicle was forced to be given for maintenance and repairs for five times and thus prayed for replacement with a new one. The complainant has not produced any documents in, she having had given that vehicle to any of the Ops for maintenance or repairs. Except producing a copy of legal notice, she got issued to the Ops alleging some problems in the vehicle and requesting for replacement. Therefore allegation of the complainant that, the vehicle started troubling within few days of its purchase is not proved. <br /> <br /> 7. The 1st OP denying all the allegations of the complainant has contended as if the vehicle was thoroughly checked in the manufactured unit and passed though all quality checks and even their expert, engineer when checked the complainant’s vehicle, it was found in good condition and roadworthy. OP has produced a copy of job card dated 11-2-2008 wherein the complainant vehicle was given to them for over flow and oil leakage from engine and it was suggested for replacement of cascatte, free service was done on that day. Again the complainant shown too had given the vehicle to the Ops for free service on 20-2-2008 with complaints like battery checkup, break checkup, checking fuel leakage and for all general service. The 1st OP in his version and also in the affidavit evidence has stated that when the complainant left the vehicle with them for free service on 20-2-2008, they carried out all necessary service and kept the vehicle ready for delivery, but despite addressing letters and remainders, the complainant did not go and take delivery of the vehicle. OP has produced copies of three letters he had addressed to the complainant on 19-8-2008, 28-3-2008 and 13-3-2008 in all these letters, the 1st OP has stated that first free service of the vehicle has been done on 20-2-2008 in all respect and due for delivery, requesting the complainant to go and take delivery of the vehicle. The 1st OP has further contended the complainant did not respond those letters and calls. The complainant has not denied these contentions of the Op and receipt of letters. The complainant except reproducing what she has stated in her complaint in the form of affidavit evidence has not traversed the stand taken by the 1st OP regarding the vehicle free of problem and its roadworthiness. Further the evidence of the OP that their company engineer checked the vehicle, did not found any problems and it was in perfect, roadworthy has also remained uncontroverted. Further evidence of the 1st OP that they had kept the vehicle ready after first free service and wrote three letters made contacts requesting the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle has also remain undisputed. Therefore the grievance of the complainant that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects is to be replaced cannot sound to reasons. <br /> <br /> 8. When the complainant delivered the vehicle to the Ops for first free service and gave instruction to check certain functioning, she should have after the service and checkup done by the OP taken delivery of the vehicle used it and if had still found the vehicle was not trouble free, she could have left it with the Ops for further needful action. But the complainant did not make any attempt even to check roadworthiness of the vehicle. Even otherwise during the pendency of this complaint and enquiry he could have got the vehicle subjected to examination by an expert to know. Whether the vehicle is trouble free and is roadworthy or not. Even that option was not chosen therefore in the absence of material proof before this forum about the manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified the complainant will not be entitled for replacement or any other relief. A consumer would become entitled for replacement of the vehicle or refund of money only on proof of manufacturing defect and deficiency in the service of the OP and not otherwise. In the case on hand, the complainant has failed to prove such allegations. As such the complaint lack merits and therefore is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 23rd September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br />