DATE OF FILING : 14/03/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of October 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 49/2018

Between

Complainant       :   Bibin S/o Mathew,

                                                        Moolechalil House,

                                                        Arakkulam P.O., Arakkulam Village, 

                                                        Thodupuzha Taluk.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party                                      :   1 . Aluva Motors India Pvt.Ltd,

                                                      KVK Building near Vengaloor Signal 

                                                      Thodupuzha 685 605.,

                                                      Represented by its Managing Director

                                                      (By Adv: P.A.Suhas)

                                                  2 . Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt.Ltd,

                                                      Village Kherki Dhaula, Badshapur NH – 8 

                                                      Link Road Gurgazon Hariyana 122 004.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

The complainant purchased a scooter from the first opposite party  manufactured by the second opposite party on 02/05/16, and registered it as KL/38E/9089.  The vehicle was having warranty of 2 years.  In June 2017, the first opposite party directed the complainant to produce the vehicle for replacing its axle as its thread was weak and the axle of the vehicle was replaced by the first opposite party under warranty.  In the month of November 2017, when the vehicle showed starting problem, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party  and after inspection the first opposite party stated that the crank milling was worn out as the nut of the crank shaft was not tighten properly.  But the first opposite party was not willing to repair it under warranty.  

 

                                                                                         (Cont....2)

-2-

 

The complainant further averred that, when the vehicle was repair by the opposite party's staff at the previous time for changing the axle, the crank nut was lying loosened and gradually the crank milling was worn out and due to that the starting trouble occurred.  The improper fitting of the crank  shaft  caused all these problems and the first opposite party is liable for that.  The first opposite party was not ready to solve the defect under warranty and denied to return the vehicle to the complainant.  Hence the complainant preferred a petition before the local police and due to the intervention of local police the first opposite party returned the vehicle to the complainant.  Since the opposite parties were not willing to repair the vehicle, complainant was forced to repair it outside and he spent Rs.7000/- for curing the defect of the vehicle.

 

The complainant further stated that the denial of warranty service by the opposite parties for their own mistake caused much pain and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief, such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.7000/- which the complainant was paid for serving the vehicle along with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice the first opposite party entered appearance and filed vakkalath alone.  The second opposite party filed detailed reply version.  In their version the second opposite party  contented that on 28/11/17, the complainant brought the vehicle to the first opposite party with starting problem and during the dismantling of engine, the first opposite party noticed external damage on crank shaft.  The complainant was made aware of the same and a repair estimate was given.  However their was no approval from him and the complainant wanted the replacement of the spare part for free.  The first opposite party was discussed it with the second opposite party  and found that the  complainant has skipped the periodic acquaintance as per the 4th and 5th paid service as inspected by the SMIPL.  More over the vehicle has completed 9552 km that cannot be considered as the manufacturing defect on the damage is caused externally.  Hence the second opposite party  has no liability in this matter.

 

                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (Cont....3)

-3-

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents.  The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P3.  Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book, Ext.P2 is the job card of the first opposite party, Ext.P3 is the bill.

 

From the defence side no oral or documentary evidence is produced.  

 

Heard both sides in detail.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the evidence on record.  

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the damage caused to the vehicle was due to the carelessness of the first opposite party in fixing the axle.  He pointed out that at the time of re-fixing the axle of the vehicle, the crank was not tightened properly and hence it was lying looses and due to that the cranking could not be done for starting the vehicle.  More over this problem was happened within the warranty period and hence the first opposite party is liable to cure the defects with free of cost.  But the first opposite party  denied to extent such a survey.

 

Even though the first opposite party appeared before this Forum, failed to resist this allegation.  The first opposite party has neither filed any reply version by denying the allegation against them nor adduced any evidence to counter the complainant averments.  Such a circumstances Forum is of a considered view that the first opposite party admitted the allegation levelled against them.  Hence we find substances in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant that the problem to the vehicle narrated in the complaint occurred due to the careless handling of the vehicle at the time of re-fixing the axle.  Hence the first opposite party is alone liable to answer this problem.

 

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         (Cont....4)

 

-4-

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum find that, the act of the first opposite party in this repair is warranting deficiency in service and hence the complaint allowed.  Forum directs the first opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4952/- (as per Ext.P3) to the complainant, as the amount which he was paid to repair the vehicle along with Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization. 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.

 

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                              SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The copy of RC book

Ext.P2            -  The job card of the first opposite party

Ext.P3          -  The bill

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                     Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT