Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/390/2013

P.Sarayanaki - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kun Motorcycles Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

N.Aravamudhan

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                               Date of Complaint Filed: 05.12.2013

                                                                                                                                           Date of Reservation     : 25.01.2022

                                                                                                                                           Date of Order              : 28.02.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:                        Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                                      Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.390/2013

MONDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

P. Sarayanaki,

D/o. P.Ponnusamy,

34A, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil Street,

Koyambedu

Chennai – 600 107.                                                                                                                           .. Complainant                                                

..Versus..

 

1.M/s Kun Motorcycles Pvt. Ltd

   New No.33, (Old No.14), 1^st Main Road,

   Kastuibai Nagar, Adyar,

   Chennai – 600 020.

   (Represented by Authorized Signatory)

 

2.M/s Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd

   Head Office

   Plot No,1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Dist – Gurgaon

   Haryana-122050

   (Represented by Managing Director)

 

3.M/s Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd

   Zonal Office

   3^rd & 4^th Floor, No.10, G J Complex

   First Main Road, CIT Nagar

   Chennai-600 035.

   (Represented by Authorized Signatory)                                                                                            .. Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the complainant                   : M/s. N. Aravamudhan

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party           : M/s  C T Prabhakar

Counsel for the 2 & 3^rd  Opposite parties  : Exparte

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of  Complainant and 1^st  Opposite party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1.   The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to take back the Honda Activa Scooter (Reg.No. TN 02 AX 8068) and return the amount of Rs.60,710/- or in the alternative supply a fresh Honda Activa Scooter and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and personal inconvenience and to pay Rs.8000/- for the financial loss and to pay the cost of this complaint.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked.   The 1^st opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written Arguments and on the side of the 1^st Opposite party documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties were set Exparte.

3.The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant has purchased Honda Activa Scooter for Rs.60,710/- from the first opposite party. The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN02 AX 8068. She took delivery on 11.09.2013. The brand new vehicle developed some trouble even while being driven from the dealer’s place. The driving was not comfortable as the handlebar was pulling towards one side. Immediately the vehicle was taken back to the dealer and where one mechanic checked and told that it was ok. After insistence, another mechanic took the vehicle for trial and accepted that there was  a problem in the handlebar and in the break. Temporally he did some adjustments and gave back the vehicle. Scratches found in the body of the vehicle was also pointed out. The first opposite party asked to bring the vehicle on 13.09.2013 for fixing all problems. Accordingly, the vehicle was brought and left with the first opposite party in the morning on 13.09.2013. In the evening when complainant’s son was went to pick up the vehicle, but the vehicle was not attended to and he was asking to bring the vehicle again on 19.09.2013. when the vehicle was brought on 19.09.2013, again they told to bring the vehicle after one week. Disgusted, the complainant sent an e-mail to the manager of the first opposite party Mr. Venkatesh. On 11.10.2013 the first opposite party sent one person by name Mr. Velu, to the complainant’s house and he took the vehicle for attending to the repair. On 12.10.2013 the delivery boy who rang up to the complainant and inform that the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the road and he tried his best to start the vehicle but in vain. He managed to  push the vehicle and left in the complainant’s house. He also informed to the first opposite party about the breakdown. But first opposite party did not even care to talk to the complainant regarding the future course of action.

4.     The following defects are noticed in the brand new vehicle;

       1. Front bumper plate to be changed;

      2. Both sides mirrors to be adjusted;

      3. Front fork-major problem – dangerously pulling to one side;

      4. Headlight (left side only follow);

      5. Scratches on the body;

      6. Front foot rubber mat – Body rusted;

      7. Full body to be water-washed;

      8. Front and back break to be adjusted;

      9. Slow speed – tune-up – perfect  - adjustment.

But the first opposite party has not rectified the above defects. Hence, filed this complaint after issuing notice to the opposite parties.

5.       Written Version of the first Opposite party in Brief:-

        It is submitted that the complainant who took the vehicle ought to have used in a wrong way due to negligence on her part and caused damage to the vehicle resulting in the alleged complaints. The complainant has raised only two defects orally and refused to leave the vehicle for rectification at the time of delivery all the other allegations are denied as untrue and it is only the imagination of the complainant with an ulterior motive of filing this false complaint. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      The Points for consideration are:-

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complaint is entitled to get the reliefs as claimed in the complaint ?

3.To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.       Point No.1

        On perusal of entire records, it is found that there is no material evidence in respect of the allegations as stated in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the complaint. Ex.A11 is the email dated 05.10.2013, in the above e-mail it is stated that there was few scratches in the body and the front fork was not in good condition. The next e-mail is Ex.A11 dated 17.10.2013. The e-mail consists of the pleading in the complaint. The third e-mail is sent by the customer card of the second opposite party (i.e) Ex.A12 dated 18.10.2013. further on perusal of the complaint and as per the allegation except the defects in the front fork of the vehicle all other defects are simple in nature. The vehicle has got a warranty and guarantee. The complainant is every right to approach the service centre to rectify the defects. But she has not done so. On the side of the first opposite party they have submitted Ex.B4 it is found that the complainant has handed over service of the vehicle to one JSP Honda, Thirumangalam, Chennai–40 on 13.03.2014. As such as per Ex.B5 he has handed over the vehicle on 07.05.2014 to the same service centre. Further as per the job card dated 07.05.2014 the vehicle met with an accident. The said authorised service provider, serviced the vehicle. Therefore the vehicle was in road worthy condition even on 07.05.2014 itself. If it is so the allegation made in the complaint are not supported with proper documents. Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

8.      Point No.2 & 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly, point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 28^th  day of February  2022.

 

 

       T.VINODH KUMAR                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

              MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	13.08.2013	Advance Booking for Honda Activa Vehicle receipt
Ex.A2	13.08.2013	Booking Form
Ex.A3	28.08.2013	Email to Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	30.08.2013	Email to Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	06.09.2013	Balance Payment for Honda Activa Vehicle Receipt
Ex.A6	06.09.2013	Vehicle Details
Ex.A7	07.09.2013	Insurance Policy of the Vehicle
Ex.A8	10.09.2013	Delivery Note
Ex.A9	10.09.2013	Tax invoice Receipt
Ex.A10	10.09.2013	Retail Invoice Receipt
Ex.A11	05.10.2013	Email to Opposite Parties
Ex.A12	17.10.2013	Email to Opposite Parties
Ex.A13	18.10.2013	Email from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A14	05.11.2013	Lawyer’s Notice issued by Complainant

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite party:

Ex.B1	-	Customer Data Sheet for Registration
Ex.B2	10.09.2013	Delivery Note
Ex.B3	10.09.2013	Registration Certificate
Ex.B4	25.03.2014	Invoice
Ex.B5	07.05.2014	Invoice

 

 

  T.VINODH KUMAR                                                   R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

        MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT