DATE OF FILING : 23.5.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of  April,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.158/2016

Between

Complainant       :   K.K. Raju,

Kallinkal House,

Kolani P.O.,    

Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Kurukshetra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

       Head Office,

       Near Fieta Dwar, Kurukshetra Road,

       Kurukshetra – 136118,

       Haryana. 

       (By Adv: T.J. Augustine) 

  2.  Shaji,

       Authorised Dealer, 

       Reo Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

       Door No.KP 13/173,

       Parakkadavu, Kattappana, Idukki.

  3.  Shameer,

       Reo Motors Partner,

       C/o. Mulloor Agencies,

       Kunthalampara Road,

       Kattappana.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased an autorickshaw manufactured by 1st opposite party, from their authorised dealer 2nd opposite party on 17.11.2014.  At the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party made him believe that this vehicle is having better performance by comparing same class of other vehicles.  Moreover, the company offers 14 free services and 2 years warranty.  Believing the words of 2nd  opposite party, complainant 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

forced to purchase this vehicle and duly registered it as KL-7-7272.  But from the date of purchase itself, the vehicle showed low pulling and entrusted the vehicle to 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party rectified the default.  Thereafter the same defect of low pulling repeated so many times and each and every time, the 2nd opposite party rectified the defect.  The complainant further stated that, the 1st opposite party given only three free services instead of 14 free services as promised by the 2nd opposite party.  Within 13 months of its purchase, the gear box of the vehicle shown severe complaint and the 2nd opposite party dismantled the gear box and resetted.  Thereafter the service agents of the 1st opposite party shut down the work shop, due to that, the complainant forced to entrust the vehicle to other local workshops for curing the defect and he had to face much financial difficulties.  The complaints of the vehicle is repeated still the vehicle is not in road worthy condition.  The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties closed their showroom and 1st opposite party has not cared to attend the problems of their customers.  The 1st opposite party failed to arrange any alternatives to redress the grievances of their customers.  This act of the opposite parties are gross deficiency in their service as well as unfair trade practice.  Against this, complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.75000/- as compensation.

 

Upon notice, 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  Notice issued to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are returned as unclaimed and after giving sufficient time for appearance, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties set exparte.  In their version, 1st opposite party contended that, the petitioner has so far not made any complaint to them regarding the matter alleged.  From the averements in the petition itself, it can be seen that he has approached the service station several times and he has successfully used the vehicle for almost two years.  Rival contentions are against actual facts.  Opposite party further contended that the petitioner has not specified how many kilometre he has run the vehicle and also he is silent about at what intervals he has done the services and at what kilometre.  It is seen that the petitioner has run his vehicle for numerous kilometres successfully and now he is trying to extract money from the opposite parties by making false allegations.  Hence there is no deficiency in service extended to the petitioner on the part of this opposite party.

(cont....3)

  -  3  -

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents.  The documents are marked as ExtP1 to P3. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC Book, Ext.P2 is the vehicle brochure, Ext.P3 is the owner's manual.  

 

Heard.  The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-  It has been contended by the complainant that, he purchased the autorickshaw branded REO Diesel, manufactured by 1st opposite party by attracting the offers promised by the 2nd opposite party and believing its performance.  But unfortunately, from the beginning days of its purchase, it showed serious defects.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle, 2nd opposite party promised that, the 1st opposite party company offers 14 free services and from the 4th free service onwards, the showroom and service station of the 1st  opposite party, which was run by 2nd opposite party, was shut down and complainant and other persons who purchased the vehicle had to faced much hardships.  They forced to approach the local workshop for rectifying the recurring defects causing to their vehicle, thereby they had to pay workshop expenses, eventhough the vehicle is under warranty.  This caused much financial loss and mental agony.  The complainant further contended that the resale value of the vehicle diminished considerably due to the reason that there is no authorised service station.  The complainant further argued that, it is the liability of the 1st opposite party to make alternative arrangement for rectifying the defects of the vehicle which was sold by them.  Here also 1st opposite party failed to do so and this act of the opposite parties are gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

On going through the averements and exhibits, the Forum convinced that the arguments of the complainant is having much relevancy in this matter and nothing is brought out from the part of the  contesting opposite party to contradict the evidence and allegations levelled against them by the complainant.  The documents which considered as the part of evidence is not disputed by the opposite party.  

 

           (cont....4)

- 4  - 

Under this circumstances, the Forum finds that, it is an admitted fact that   2nd and 3rd opposite parties closed their service centre and showroom of 1st opposite party, they failed to make alternative arrangement to meet the needs of their customers.  It is a gross deficiency in service from the part of 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party is solely liable to compensate the complainant.

 

Hence the complaint allowed.  1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

 

     Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of April, 2018

 

 

Sd/-

  SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

          Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  Copy of RC Book.

Ext.P2            -  Brochure of vehicle.

Ext.P3            -  Owner's manual.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

      Forwarded by Order,

 

 

          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT