D.o.F:20/9/2010
D.o.O:7/3/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC 199/2010
Dated this, the 7th day of March 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Rashid.M, S/o Ali.K,
Mogar, Patla Po, Kasaragod : Complainant
(in person).
1.Manager, Pace Motors,
Adkathbail, Kasaragod
(Adv. Madhavan Malankad,Kasaragod)
2. Honda Motor Cycle &Scooters India(P) Ltd, : Opposite parties
Plot No.1 Sector-3, IMT Manasar,
Gurgaon Dt. Haryana, 122050.
(Exparte)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
The case of complainant Rasheed is that the opposite parties did not supply him the helmet when he purchased a Honda Unicorn motorcycle from Ist opposite party who is the dealer of the motorcycle manufactured by 2nd opposite party. According to complainant as per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India a dealer or a manufacturer of a motorcycle is bound to supply a helmet free of cost and the opposite parties neglected the said judgment and did not deliver the helmet free of cost. Though he invited the attention of Ist opposite party to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, they not only provided the free helmet but ridiculed him.
2. According to Ist opposite party the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not held that helmet should be supplied free of cost to the customer but they should pay the same. The Supreme court has only made it mandatory for two wheeler manufacturers to supply helmet that conform to the Bureau of standards while selling scooters and motorbikes to customers. The complainant did not ask for supply of helmet on the date of purchase or later on 20/8/2010 as alleged. Further Kerala Govt. has not issued any circular or rules through the Transport Department or other Govt.departments making it mandatory to supply free helmets by the dealer and the Ist opposite party did not violate any order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant is therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.
3 Complainant’s father examined as PW1. Exts.A1&A2 marked. On the day of evidence opposite party remained absent. Complainant heard documents perused.
4. The case of complainant is that against the direction of the Hon’ble Apex court to supply a helmet opposite parties sold him the vehicle without helmet.
5. From the evidence adduced by the complainant it is clear that the opposite parties had violated the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is the law of land.
6. In a special leave petition filed by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers 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.’
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 and it violates the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay ` 2000/- as compensation to the complainant for rudely behaving him and thereby causing mental agony to him. Opposite parties are also directed to pay `1500/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall further liable to pay interest @12% for the compensation ` 2000/- from today to till date of payment.
Exts.
A1-copy of cash bill
A2-newspaper report about the Hon’ble Supreme court’s order
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
Senior superintendent
