Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/10/2022

Subash S S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Logtech Motors - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

           SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

CC.NO.10/2022 (Filed on : 01/01/2022)

ORDER DATED : 10/05/2023

COMPLAINANT

Subhash.S.S

Kailasam veedu,

Thannivila, Neduveli,

Konchira.P.O, Vembayam,

Pin – 695615

(Party in person)

                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Manager,

Log Tech Motors,

TC.12/67, Opposite Lourd Church,

P.M.G, Thiruvananthapuram,

Pin – 695004

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.   This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.

3.  The case of the complainant in short is that on 17/06/2021 the complainant purchased a COMBINED - CD Unit of TVS Scooty Pep Plus from the opposite party by paying Rs.1383/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred and eighty three only). The spare part of TVS Scooty Pep Plus was purchased as per the advice from the workshop stating that the defect of the vehicle is due to the non functioning of the above said CD unit. After the purchase of the product, the complainant handed over the same to the workshop and after necessary repairs the vehicle was handed over to the complainant by the workshop. Subsequently on 10/12/2021 while the complainant was driving the Scooty suddenly the engine became off and hence the vehicle was again taken to the workshop and from there was informed that again the very same problem regarding CD unit was occurred. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party with the bill relating to the purchase of the CD unit and informed the opposite party that the product which was purchased recently became faulty and requested for replacement. At that time the opposite party informed that the spare parts are of the manufacturing company and there is no warranty for the same and hence only option is to purchase a new one by paying Rs.1475/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred and seventy five only). The complainant further submits that except this defect there is no other complaints to the vehicle and it is not possible for the complainant to pay Rs.1475/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred and seventy five only) frequently for replacing the CD unit. According to the complainant he suspects, whether the product delivered to the complainant was an original one or not. Hence alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances. The opposite party through the written version admitted that the complainant has purchased a COMBINED- CD Unit on 17/06/17/06/2021 from the shop of the opposite party. The opposite party’s contention is that as per the policy of the company only three months warranty is available for the genuine parts of the company and hence the period of warranty in respect of the product purchased by the complainant expired on 17/09/2021 and hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 from the side of the complainant. Though the opposite party filed written version, not filed any affidavit or other documents and hence there is no documents from the side of the opposite party.

 5.  The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost

6. Heard. Perused affidavit, records and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 is marked on behalf of the complainant. Ext.P1 is the invoice dated 17/06//2021 for an amount of Rs.1664/-(Rupees one thousand six hundred and sixty four only)( which includes the value of the product purchased by the complainant) issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant . In the written version the opposite party contended that as per the company policy, genuine spare parts are having only three months warranty and hence the opposite party is not liable to replace the product purchased by the complainant. But the opposite party failed to produce any document to show that the warranty period pertaining to

 

 

the product purchased by the complainant is for a period of three months. As the opposite party has not filed affidavit or marked any documents, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. As the opposite party admits the purchase of the product by the complainant from their workshop, then it is the burden of the opposite party to prove that the product purchased by the complainant is having only three months warranty period. By the admission of the opposite party regarding the purchase of the product by the complainant from the shop of the opposite party the complainant has established his initial burden of proof and hence the contention of the opposite party regarding the warranty period of the product is a matter to be established by the opposite party by cogent evidence. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 document, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. From the available evidence before this commission we find that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. As the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant was due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained                                                   

 

 

 

by the complainant. As there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1383/- along with compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except costs shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till date of realization / remittance.

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 10^th day of May 2023.

 

                                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                             Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

APPENDIX

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Subhash

List of Exhibit for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Invoice dated 17/06//2021 for an amount of Rs.1664/

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibit for the opposite party – NIL

Court Exhibit                                    - NIL

 

 

                                                                                                          Sd/-

PRESIDENT