Date of filing : 21-06-2011
Date of order : 28-10 -2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 140/2011
Dated this, the 28th day of October 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Chandrashekar, } Complainant
S/o. Gurubasappa
H.G. Kelugudda,
Kasaragod.
(In Person)
1. Manager, Pace Motors, } Opposite parties
Adukkathvayal, Kasaragod.
(Adv. Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod)
2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooters India (P) Ltd,
Plot No.1, Sector,3, I.M.T,
Manazar, Gurgaon, 122050,
Hariyana
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant Sri.Chandrashekhar is that the opposite parties did not supply him the helmet when he purchased a Unicorn Bike from 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the motor cycle manufactured by 2nd opposite party According to the complainant as per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India a dealer or a manufacturer of a motor cycle is bound to supply a helmet free of cost and opposite parties neglected the demand of the complainant to deliver the helmet free of cost. Though he invited the attention of 1st opposite party to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod in CC 199/10, they not only provided the free helmet but ridiculed him.
2. According to Ist opposite party the dealer is not obliged to supply the helmet free of charge as claimed by the complainant. Entire staff of the opposite party thoroughly trained in dealing with customer care service and not even single employee misbehaved or ridiculed any customer till date.
3. Complainant is examined as PW1. Complainant produced booking form of Pace Motors. Heard the complainant and documents perused.
4. The case of complainant is that the direction of the Hon’ble Apex court is to supply a helmet free of cost, but opposite parties sold him the vehicle without helmet. But when he deposed before the Forum his case is entirely changed. But when he deposed before the Forum he claimed that he insisted for bill while paying money for extra fittings. He paid `550/- for extra fittings. Ist opposite party refused to give helmet. His complaint and deposition are inconsistent and unbelievable.
5. In a special leave petition filed by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturer against the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court making the purchase of helmet along with new two wheelers mandatory, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the petition has held “Let there be more helmets when you are buying second scooter of `30,000/- then you can buy a helmet also which is of `300/- only”. This makes it mandatory for the dealers to supply the helmets along with every two wheeler they sell. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that “the manufacturers would have to give BIS certified helmets as original equipment”.
6. An ‘original equipment’ which is mandatorily to be sold is an integral part of the two wheeler. Therefore selling a Motor Cycle without a helmet is equal to selling it without tyres and that itself constitute unfair trade practice.
7. In this case the 1st opposite party was ready to sell the helmet charging its price. But the complainant insisted the helmet free of charge in the order of this Forum in CC.199/10, we ordered compensation for ‘rudely behaving and thereby causing Mental agony to the complainant”. The dealer of a two wheelers must sell helmet with the vehicle. Helmet is an integral part of a two wheeler. Every dealer should supply helmet along with two wheeler they sell.
8. Hence we are of the view that the intention of the complainant is not bonafide. It is very clear while going through the complaint and his deposition.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
PW1.Chandrashekar.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
