By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

            Complaint in short is as follows:-

1.         The complainant purchased Honda active 6 G scooter with registration No. KL 65 R 538 from the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 28/06/2021 making payment of Rs.92, 093/-.  From the beginning use of vehicle there was excessive vibration at a speed range of 30- to 40 kilometer. The complainant submitted that the vehicle has got handle jerking and difficulties while using the vehicle. When he approached the opposite party for the first service it was told to the complainant that the defects of the vehicle will be set right after service. But even one year after completing the free services the defect remained without rectification. Accordingly the opposite party advised the complainant to produce the vehicle and thereby he produced the vehicle before the opposite party on 26/07/2022. Meanwhile it was also noted complaint to gear functioning and abnormal sound which caused in convenience to the complainant.

2.         The complainant submitted that in between 26/07/2022 and 20/12/2022 almost 6 occasions within 150 days the vehicle was taken to the opposite party and the vehicle was with the opposite party for 97 days. The complainant submitted the opposite parties could not rectify the defect of the vehicle so far. Hence the complainant requested to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle rupees 92,093/- along with compensation. The complainant submitted that there is kicker struck of the vehicle and so he was not able to use the same. Hence the complainant issued a letter to the opposite party stating the defect for rectification. The complainant submitted that the act of the opposite party amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He prayed for refund of the cost of the vehicle and compensation of Rs.2, 00,000/- along with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

3.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties one to three entered appearance and field version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

4.         The opposite parties one to three admitted the purchase of the vehicle from the opposite parties on 28/06/2021. But the opposite parties denied the allegation that there was defects to the vehicle from the date of purchase itself that engine problem and jerking to handle. The opposite parties denied that the complainant caused inconvenience and hardship due to the defect to the vehicle. The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant approached the opposite parties after one year i.e. completing 3 free services to the vehicle. So the contention of the complainant there was defect to the vehicle and so he was not able to ride the vehicle from the date of purchase itself is baseless. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle for fist service and after service with full satisfaction the vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant. The submission of the complainant that on 26/07/2022 the vehicle was brought to the opposite party and that time there was sound from gear wheel is not correct. The complainant has taken back the vehicle on the same day. Subsequently next month the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party and also the opposite parties has collected the vehicle from the residence of complainant whenever he demanded. Moreover the opposite parties had provided substitute vehicle for the use of complainant. It is further submitted that the opposite parties provided free service during all the occasions.

5.         The opposite parties submitted that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle for service the opposite parties attended the vehicle with due care and after ensuring there is no defect to the vehicle delivered to the complainant and all these facts are available in the job card of the vehicle.

6.         The opposite parties further submitted the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party on 01/04/2023 for oil change and that time no repair work was done. The complainant brought the vehicle riding by himself. If the allegation of defect is there he could not have driven the vehicle. During that occasion the vehicle had covered 14886 kilometers. The opposite party had replaced the chassis at the request of complainants. The opposite party alleged the complainant approached the opposite party at the instance of some other workshop people and thereafter the chassis was replaced. After replacement of chassis fork adjustment is required but the complainant was not ready for that and after filing this complaint the complainant approached the opposite party and the same also was rectified. The opposite party submitted that all the defects alleged to the vehicle was properly examined by the opposite parties and has done all the service to the best level. But the complainant subsequently demanded replacement of engine. But there was no such complaint to replace the engine. Hence the allegations of the complainant is baseless and the complaint is filed with ill motive. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint.

7.         The fourth opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the expert commissioner examined the vehicle and has reported there is no handle jerking while running the vehicle which is the one of the main allegations against the opposite party. It is also noted the kicker struck feeling also not found during the inspection of the expert commissioner. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the allegations are like beating the bush with a stick. The contention of the opposite party is that there is no specific allegation against fourth opposite party and no manufacturing defect proved by the complainant.  The contention of the opposite party is that the consumer cannot claim the replacement of vehicle for some defective spare parts. In this complaint they are   ready to replace the specific spare parts and after that an expert inspection can be done whether the replacement is effective. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint in accordance with the version of opposite party.

8.         The complainant and the opposite parities filed affidavit and documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A11. The Commissioners report marked as Ext. C1.  The documents of the opposite parties marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext. A1 is copy of receipt voucher dated 28/06/2021 for Rs.92, 093/-. Ext. A2 is copy of tax invoice dated 30/06/2021 for Rs. 72,211/-. Ext. A3 is copy of customer gate pass dated 26/07/2022. Ext. A4 is copy of job card dated 28/10/2022. Ext. A5 is copy of job card dated 27/09/2022. Ext. A6 is copy of job card dated 20/12/2022. Ext. A7 is copy of letter submitted by the complainant before the GM uniride Honda, Malappuram dated 27/01/2021. Ext. A8 is copy of letter submitted by the complainant before the MD uniride Honda Malappuram dated 27/01/2023. Ext. A9 is copy of postal receipts dated 27/01/2023, two in number. Ext. A10 is copy of job card dated 12/08/2022. Ext.A11 copy of job card dated 03/06/2022. Ext. B1 is copy of job card dated 30/06/2021. Ext. B2 is copy of job card dated 01/04/2023.

9.         Heard complaint and opposite parties perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is defect to the vehicle?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost?

10.       Point No.1and 2

 The case of the complainant is that he purchased active 6 G scooter of Honda Company on 28/06/2021 from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and from the date of purchase itself the vehicle has got some complaints. The complainant approached the opposite parties but the opposite parties stated that it will be set right after completion of free services. The complainant availed proper services within one year but even after that the complaints to the vehicle remained not solved. Hence the complainant approached the opposite parties but there was no solution for his grievance. Hence filed this complaint.

11.       The complainant submitted that the vehicle was with the opposite party service center for more than 97 days in between 26/07/2022 to 20/12/2022. But the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects of the vehicle.

12.      The complainant produced Ext. A1 to A10 to prove his case. In addition to that the complainant availed expert opinion which is marked as Ext. C1 in the complaint. The expert Mr. Santhosh Kumar K, AMVI, regional transport office, Tirurangady inspected the vehicle and submitted a detailed report. The report filed by the commissioner substantiate the allegations of complainant. He submitted that he duly inspected the vehicle and conducted two days test drive. He stated that he could not find the defect of excessive vibration from front side and kicker tight as alleged by the complainant. At the same time he reported that the vehicle is having some manufacturing defects in engine side, due to synchronizing of clutch, gear, brake and accelerator, and some alignment problems that stated in the complaint.  He concluded his report as follows:-“Hence I am concluded that the vehicle kept about 97 days in the authorized service center for various services in recordically and unrecordically. Only two years old vehicle, chassis frame is also replaced with new one but not found in any job card produced by the service person. And also  the registered owner state that the engine assembly also inter changed with another vehicle for conducting test drive  for all of the above facts the respondents have failed to rectify the second problem ie abnormal sound from engine side, and tight, I think that that is the serious laxity  on their part “.

13.      The commissioner’s report categorically established the allegations of the complainant the vehicle was with manufacturing defect and was in the custody of the service center of opposite party for more than 97 days within a short span of time.

14.      The opposite parties simply denied the allegations of the complainant. It appears the chassis of the vehicle was replaced and which was not born out by job card. It is also noted engine assembly interchanged with another vehicle for conducting test drive. Moreover the expert commissioner stated that the opposite party failed to rectify the defect of the vehicle.  The commission do not find any merit in the contention of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled redressal of grievance. It is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the vehicle has got manufacturing defect.

15.      Point No. 3

The complaint submitted hat the vehicle has got defect from the beginning itself and even after proper service the condition of the vehicle was not improved.  He submitted that he suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardship due to the defective vehicle and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The prayer of the complainant is to replace the vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The complainant prayed compensation of Rs. 2, 00,000/- and cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

16.       The commission finds that the vehicle has got defect but he was in use of the vehicle during the period. So it appears it will not be proper to replace the vehicle of the same specification. The commission finds it will be just to direct opposite parties to refund the cost of vehicle Rs.92, 093/- with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint to till date of payment. It is also relevant to consider the inconvenience and hardship suffered by complainant on account of the defective vehicle and deficiency in service. Thought be complainant prayed 2, 00,000/- rupees as compensation the Commission finds Rs. 50,000/- will be a reasonable amount as compensation in the mater. The complainant is also entitled cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

17.      In the light of above facts and circumstances the complaint stands allowed as follows:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 92,093/-/-(Rupees ninety two

Thousand and ninety three only) to the complainant as the cost of the vehicle.

                 The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand

Only) to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the   complainant.

2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 9% interest for the above said entire amount from the date of order to till date of payment.

  Dated this 30^th day of October, 2024.        

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A11

Ext.A1: Copy of receipt voucher dated 28/06/2021 for Rs.92, 093/-.

Ext.A2: Copy of tax invoice dated 30/06/2021 for Rs. 72,211/-.

Ext A3: Copy of customer gate pass dated 26/07/2022.

Ext A4: Copy of job card dated 28/10/2022.

Ext A5: Copy of job card dated 27/09/2022.

Ext.A6: Copy of job card dated 20/12/2022.

Ext.A7: Copy of letter submitted by the complainant before the GM uniride Honda,

             Malappuram dated 27/01/2021.

Ext A8: Copy of letter submitted by the complainant before the MD uniride Honda

            malappuram 27/01/2023.

Ext A9: Copy of postal receipt dated 27/01/2023 2 in number.

Ext A10: Copy of job card dated 12/08/2022.

Ext.A11: Copy of job card dated 03/06/2022.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2

Ext.B1: Copy of job card dated 30/06/2021.

Ext.B2: Copy of job card dated 01/04/2023.

Ext. C1: Commissioners report (Mr. Santhosh Kumar K AMVI regional transport office  

                 Tirurangadi)

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

   Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Memb