BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 14/08/2009

Date of Order : 27/02/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 445/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

On 15-01-2008, the complainant purchased an AVON E. SCOOT, scooter from the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 31,190/- with one year warranty. On the very next day, the vehicle showed various defects. The 1^st opposite party failed to repair the same stating one or another reasons. On 14-10-2008, the complainant transported the scooter to the 1^st opposite party's workshop to get it repaired. The 1^st opposite party rectified the defects. Time and again, the complainant had to approach the 1^st opposite party to repair the vehicle. The facts being so on 19-02-2009, the complainant filed C.C. No. 26/2009 in the Forum. The proceedings in that complaint closed, since the 1^st opposite party undertook to rectify the defects free of cost. Even after the repairs, the defects persisted. Finally on 10-08-2009, the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party demanded Rs. 12,000/- to rectify the defects. The complainant is entitled either to get the vehicle replaced or to get refund of the price of the vehicle together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

The e-scoot is a battery operated wheel integrated hub motor having a maximum speed of 25 Kms/hour and can travel upto 65 Kms for one full battery re-charge, which is 6 to 8 hours. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 24-12-2007. At the time of delivery, the 1^st opposite party had given a user manual to the complainant and had explained to him the features and the free services that he has to do. The complainant had not availed any of the free maintenance check ups and had never made any complaint whatsoever before the 1^st opposite party. The complainant had come to the workshop only on 14-10-2008 with some minor complaints, the same was rectified and an amount of Rs. 113/- was charged as service charges. Subsequently, the complainant alleging defects in the vehicle had approached this Forum by filing C.C. No. 26/2009. Though there was only vague allegations, the 1^st opposite party undertook that any complaint if existed would be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and C.C. No. 26/2009 was closed. Accordingly, all the defects were rectified. Again on 04-04-2009, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party stating that front brake was damaged, the same was rectified by the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter on 10-08-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party with the complaints of battery the warranty for the battery was for 6 months. The complainant was not ready to pay the price of the battery. There is neither manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.

3. Neither party takes steps to implead the manufacturer of the vehicle in the party array, so this Forum suo-motu impleaded the manufacturer in the party array vide order dated 18-01-2011, since they are necessarily a necessary party for the just disposal of this complaint. The 2^nd opposite party adopted the very same contentions of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced with a new one or to get refund of the price of the same?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

5. The parties are in consensus on the following issues :

1. On 15-01-2008, the complainant purchased an AVON E SCOOT from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 31,950/- evidenced by Ext. A1 retail invoice.

2. 12 months warranty for the vehicle and 6 months warranty for the battery have been provided by the 2^nd opposite party evident from Ext. B1 user manual.

3. The complainant approached this Forum by filing C.C. No. 26/2009 and the matter involved in the complaint has been settled between the parties.

6. According to the complainant, the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and thus he is either entitled to get the vehicle replaced or refund of the price. On the contrary, the counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect and there is no expert evidence to substantiate the same.

7. Admittedly, no expert opinion is before us to sort out the issue at hand since uncalled for. Exts. A4 series, A6 and A7 go to show the purchase of spare parts and the service history of the vehicle, which can be summarized as below :

Serial No.	Date	Exhibits	Commodity/item purchased.	Remarks
	14-10-2008	A4 series	29 07 001 E-S/Switch for Front Light. 29 07 002 E-S/Switch for Turn Light. 20 16 002/Bulb 12v 10W/5W Rear Light Cess on Vat @ 1% Labour charges R – Off.	Retail bill
	30-10-2008	“	2017017/Plastic Box Junction R – Off Labour Charges Received.	“
	23-12-2008	“	20 06 001/Bulb 12V15W/15W for Head Light Cess on Vat @ 1% P & F charges R – Off Labour Charges Received.	“
	03-01-2009	“	20 10 001/Rear Expander Brake Cess on Vat @ 1% R – Off Cash Discount Allowed	“
	04-04-2008	“	2011013/Front Expander Brake Output Cess on Vat @1% P & F Charges R – Off.	“
	15-01-2008	A6	Mirror complaint Right protector broken. Left indicator broken Foot rest (ladies) Running off Handle Bar Plastic complaint	Job Card
	15-06-2008	A7	Battery charging Brake complaint	Job Card

The above recurring defects of the vehicle would go to show that the vehicle had been suffering from various defects during the warranty period and thereafter. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get either replacement of the defective vehicle with a new one or refund of its price.

8. Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, order for compensation and costs are not called for.

9. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct that, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the disputed vehicle with a new one or refund the price of the vehicle as per Ext. A1. In either of the events, the complainant shall return the vehicle to the opposite parties simultaneously. It is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to choose either of the demands.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of February 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========