O R D E R.
By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:- Complainant had purchased a Motorcycle KTM Duke 250 from the Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.1,99,950/- on 05/09/2020 and the bike was registered with RTO Wayanad bearing No. KL-12-N-0278 and paid Rs. 43,400/- to the RTO, and the vehicle was insured by paying premium of Rs.10,484/-. Altogether the Complainant spent Rs.2,43,834/- for the vehicle. From the date of purchase itself, the Complainant had noted that there was some unusual sound coming from the engine. The defect was intimated to the First Opposite Party and Second Opposite Party. They replied that it would become normal after plied the vehicle for a certain period/kilometers. On all occasions of subsequent services, the Complainant intimated to the Opposite Parties that the unusual sound of the engine was still exists, but they did not care about it. After the delivery of the vehicle, the Complainant found another major defect that there was coolant leakage which would result in spraying hot coolant on the leg of the Complainant and which caused the overheating of the engine and shutting down of the engine function. The Complainant several times complained about this to Opposite Parties but they were saying that they had corrected it and even after the repair, again there was problem. When the Complainant enquired about the matter to other KTM 250 owners and gathered the information no such Complaint was there to their vehicles and thus the Complainant realized that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant suffered serious manufacturing defect. Hence the Second Opposite Party is liable to rectify the defects pointed out by the Complainant. Complainant being a professional, lost his working days to take the vehicle to Calicut and even the Opposite party kept the vehicle for two and a half months at their workshop. The Opposite Parties unlawfully obtained cash during the free service period to rectify the manufacturing defect. Non use of the vehicle for two and a half months resulted in a huge financial loss to the Complainant. On a certain occasion, the Opposite Party No.2 did not give bills to the payment made by the Complainant. Even in the alleged repair being done, the defect of the vehicle is still persisting and the Complainant is unable to take the bike for a long journey. The act of Opposite Parties is deficiency in service and the act of the first Opposite Party by selling a vehicle having a manufacturing defect is unfair trade practice. The Complainant has lost about Rs.2,50,000/- and was compelled to keep the bike rather idle without using it, the Opposite Parties are liable to substitute a new vehicle of the same category for the Complainant. So, the Complainant prayed for repayment of the amount of the vehicle or substitution of the vehicle, compensation, and cost from the Opposite Parties.
3. After the admission of the complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party, but despite due service, they did not appear and the Commission set them ex-parte.
4. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3 series. The Opposite Party did not challenge the complaint as well as the testimony of the Complainant. Complainant proved his case undoubtedly. The Commission found that there is deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant sustained difficulties. Hence the Complainant deserves to get relief as prayed for. The Opposite parties are liable to substitute the defective bike with a new vehicle or pay back the amount spent by the Complainant for purchase and other ancillary expenses such as registration, insurance, etc. Under the above circumstances, we hold that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the loss suffered to him and cost also.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.
- The Opposite Parties are directed to substitute the defective vehicle with a new same category vehicle within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,43,834/-(Rupees Two lakh Forty Three thousand Eight hundred and Thirty Four only) to the Complainant within 15 days after the expiration of one month of the receipt of this order.
- The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.30,000/-( Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards loss of working days and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as non use of vehicle, jointly and severally to the complainant within one month from the date of service of this order. Failing which the Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum for the above amount from the date of this order till the realization of the amount.
© The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand
Five hundred only) towards cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April 2022.
Date of filing:15.09.2021.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Ajnas M.T Complaianant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. dt:18.01.2020.
A2. Brochure.
A3(a) Copy of Customer Information.
A3(b) Tax Invoice. dt:17.03.2021.
A3(c) Customer Information. dt:21.04.2021.
A3(d) Tax Invoice. dt:23.06.2021.
A3(e) Tax Invoice. dt:29.11.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
