Date of filing : 19-08-2011
Date of order : 20-03-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.213/2011
Dated this, the 20th day of March 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Abdullakunhi, } Complainant
S/o.Mohammed,
R/at Kodangai House,
Chemnad, Kaland.Po.
Kasaragod Taluyk& Dist.
(Adv.George John Plamoottil, Kasaragod)
The Manager, Pace Motors, } Opposite party
Adkathbail, Kasaragod. 671121.
(Adv.Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Shorn of all other averments and allegations the case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not supply him helmet free of cost at the time of taking delivery of new Activa Delux Scooter bearing Reg.No.KL14 K 3505 and they did not replace the battery which caused intermittent starting trouble due to low charge. As a result he has to hire another motor cycle for daily rent of `150/- also. Thereby he suffered.
2. According to opposite party there was no promise to supply helmet free of cost at the time of taking delivery of the motor cycle. Complainant approached with a complaint of low charge of its battery on 18-06-2011. But it was rectified on the same day. Prior to that there was no complaint. Hence no promise was made to replace the battery. He did not come to the dealer thereafter with any complaint of Battery. But surprisingly he sent lawyer notice. On receipt of notice one of the staff of opposite party contacted the complainant over phone and requested him to come to the show room and told that if the battery requires replacement. It will be replaced. But complainant informed that he already entrusted the matter with the advocate and refused to come to their shown room. Hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant as claimed in the complaint.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked. On the side of Opposite Party the Manager of their service department filed affidavit as DW1. Ext.B1 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The first grievance of complainant is that the opposite party did not give helmet free of cost as against their promise. But in order to substantiate this complainant did not produce any material evidence. Had there been any such offer as part of sales promotion the opposite party should have given wide publicity to such offer through local dailies, notices etc. But no such documents are produced to prove the same.
5. The further grievance of the complainant is that due to low charge of the battery, the vehicle caused intermittent starting trouble and the battery should have to be replaced with a new one. As against the case the opposite party in their version has stated that complainant approached with a complaint of low charge of its battery on 18-06-2011 but it was rectified on the same day and after receiving the lawyer notice one of their staff called the complainant by telephone as requested to come over to show room with the vehicle and if it requires replacement then it will be replaced. But the complainant as PW1 denied in his cross-examination that the opposite party telephoned him to approach them to redress his grievance.
6. From the evidence adduced by both sides, it is clear that the complainant has taken the motorcycle to opposite party with the complaint of low charge battery on 18-06-2011 itself. Such a complaint to the battery within a short span of purchase of vehicle is unusual. It is also clear that the complainant was constrained to cause a lawyer notice demanding replacement of battery.
7. The opposite party ought to have replaced the battery immediately when the complainant approached them directly with the complaint of low charge. They should not have waited till a lawyer notice is received. Sending a customer back without satisfactorily redressing his grievance is a deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to replace the battery of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-14/K.3505 belongs to the complainant with a brand new one. Opposite party is also directed to pay `2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Photocopy of RC
A2.06-07-2011 Photocopy of Lawyer notice.
A3. Postal acknowledgement Card
B1.Owners Mannual
PW1.Abdulla
DW1. Hariprasad.M.K.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
