CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th June, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                      Date  of filing : 01/01/2015

               : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC /3/2015

Sankaran Namboothiri

S/o.T.M.C. Neelakandan Namboothiri,

Thelakkad Mana, Vellinezhy (PO),                               :        Complainant

Nglakurussi, Cherpulasseri, Kerala.

(By Adv.P.Ramachandran)

  Vs

1. Manager,                                                              :        Opposite parties

   M/s Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd,

   5/42, NH-47, Eramalloor,

   Alppuzha, Kerala – 688 537   

2. Proprietor,

    Musamiha Marketting,

    Musamiha complex, Amayur,

    Pattambi, Palakkad – 679 303

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Romai Electric Scooter, Romai miu miu GC-Black, on 31/03/2014 from the 2^nd opposite party, M/s.Musamiha marketing, dealer of the scooters.  The vehicle was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, M/s Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt.Ltd.  The complainant used the vehicle for a few months and completed the 3^rd free service on 13/09/2014.  But, after the 3^rd service, on 15/09/2014, the complainant could not start the vehicle.  When the dealer was informed about the defect they ask the complainant to take the vehicle to their service centre.  Complainant took the vehicle to the dealer in a goods carrying vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party checked the vehicle and promised to return it within two days.  However, the dealer failed to return the vehicle as promised.  When the complainant contacted the dealer, they informed him that the fault was in the controller and again promised to return the vehicle within a week.  After two weeks, the dealer informed the complainant that they had corrected the defect and asked the complainant to take back the vehicle.  When the complainant went to Pattambi for taking back the vehicle he found that the 2^nd opposite party had not repaired the vehicle as promised.  They could not even start the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that they would take the vehicle to the manufacturer and repair the vehicle with their help.  But, both parties failed to repair the vehicle as promised and it was kept idle with the dealer for more than a month.  Opposite parties failed to give a proper reply for the inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle.  Hence the complainant was constrained to send a notice through his lawyer to the opposite parties.  On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties contacted the complainant and promised to return the vehicle within a week.   The complainant alleges that the defect of the vehicle was due its manufacturing defect.  The inordinate delay in rectifying the defects and irresponsible and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.  Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum with a prayer to repay the purchase price of the vehicle  to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards  mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards  litigation expenses.

The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties appeared in person and filed their version stating the  following. 

Three free services are allowed by the manufacturer to the customer after purchasing of the vehicle.  Opposite parties had clearly maintained service register and job card when the customer brings the vehicle for service.  The opposite parties will affix their seal on service coupon and its counter foil when the  vehicle was brought for service.  It is the clear evidence to see whether the vehicle is maintained properly or not.  But unfortunately, the complainant was not bringing his vehicle for service even after 5 months from the date of purchase.  Only on 13/9/2014 the complainant brought his vehicle, to the service when some technical problems were seen on the vehicle.  The period of 1^st free service is within one month and the 2^nd free service after 90 days and 3^rd service is after 180 days.  The complainant does not follow the terms of service .   This was the reason for causing technical problem to the complainant’s vehicle.  The problem occurred on engine parts named controller and battery and it was not readily available at that time.  The delay in availability in parts was the reason for the delay of delivery within the promised date.  The manufacturer changed the controller and the battery free of costs, even though complainant does not made any services as per service book.  The opposite parties contacted the complainant on 31/10/2014 for informing the vehicle is ready for delivery.  But he had sent a notice through his lawyer and demanded to refund his purchase value or replace the vehicle.  Opposite parties contacted the complainant directly and over phone several times for settling the disputes but he was not co-operating for any settlement and he demands for refund of purchase value or replacement.  The complainant is not ready to take delivery and has moved for unwanted litigation.  Vehicle is ready with good condition for delivery for more than three months.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits.  Complainant filed application for appointment of expert commission as IA 216/15.  Since the opposite parties had no objection, application was allowed.  Commissioner examined the vehicle and filed a detailed report.  Complainant filed additional affidavit.  Ext.A1-A5 was marked from the part of the complainant.  Ext.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite parties.  Experts commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

Issues arises

1.  Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
3. If so, what are the reliefs?

Issues

We had perused documents as well as documents filed before the Forum.  The complainant submits that the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties had caused much inconvenience, mental agony and hardship to the complainant and he could not used vehicle for few months.  He had to spend a lot of amount for arranging alternate conveyance.  The complainant is a poojari by profession and is doing poojas and other rituals in temples.  He had purchased the vehicle to travel from his house to the temples and other places where he is doing poojas and other rituals.  He further submits that he had maintained the vehicle properly and had taken good care in handling the vehicle.   The vehicle could not to be started the very next day of the 3^rd service.  The 2^nd opposite party kept the vehicle idle for more than 1 month and the 1^st opposite party failed to mitigate the grievances of the complainant in spite of repeated requests.  Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the purchase price of the vehicle to the complainant.  They are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- as damages  for the mental agony.  The opposite parties submitted that the complainant failed to produce the vehicle for service till 13/09/2014  i.e  after 5 months from the date of purchase.  The complainant did not follow the terms of service and that was the reason for the technical problem of his vehicle.  In order to prove the allegations in the complaint an expert commissioner was appointed to inspect the vehicle.  He inspected the vehicle and filed a report which was marked as Ext.C1.  In the said report the commissioner had stated that the 2^nd opposite party is not equipped with special tools or even service technician.  He further reported that the vehicle could not be driven about 19 kmph, which is not coming up to the specification of the manufacturer.  Some abnormal grinding sounds are coming from the motor of the vehicle.  None of the opposite parties are able to detect the defect or to rectify both the above defects.  He has also reported that sufficient service network is not provided by the manufacturer for the effective and efficient service of the vehicle which will adversely affect the life of the vehicle. 

From the above finding it can be revealed that the alleged vehicle is having manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint. 

From the above circumstances  we are of the view that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is allowed. 

Hence we direct the opposite parties to refund the purchase price of the vehicle Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) as evident from Ext.A1 along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as damages for the mental agony suffered along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  The afore said amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization.    The complainant shall return the vehicle to the opposite parties after realization of the amount.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of June, 2016.

                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                   Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                         Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                                       Sd/-

V.P. Anantha Narayanan

                                                                     Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - Purchase bill of the vehicle dtd.31/03/2014 (Photocopy)

Ext.A2 - Copy of lawyer notice dtd.27/10/2014(Photocopy)

Ext.A3 series– Postal receipts 2 nos.

Ext.A4 –Acknowledgement card 2 nos.

Ext.A5 – Owner’s manual.

Ext.C1-Commission Report (Sri.Appu.P.M)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1- Warranty claim form (Photocopy)

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil     

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.5000/- as cost.