BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 28/09/2011

Date of Order : 30/06/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 517/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

On 27-07-2009, the complainant purchased a Honda Activa Scooter from the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. Two years warranty has been provided by the opposite parties. On 03-05-2011, the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party for repairs. The 1^st opposite party informed that the replacement of crank shaft and related jobs are required to be done to cure the defects. Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party carried out the work. The 1^st opposite party demanded Rs. 8,737/- towards the repair charges of the vehicle. The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to deliver the vehicle without any charge, since the vehicle is within the warranty period. But the 1^st opposite party failed to do so. On 26-07-2011, the complainant caused a letter to the 1^st opposite party requesting to release the vehicle. But the 1^st opposite party refused to do so. Thereafter, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party. Though the 1^st opposite party accepted the same, there was no response. So, the complainant is before us with the following reliefs :

1. To direct the opposite parties to deliver the vehicle to the complainant without having to pay the repair charges.

2. To set aside the impugned bill issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- each towards compensation and costs of the proceedings respectively.

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

As per the warranty policy, the vehicle gets the warranty coverage for 24 months or for 24000 Klms. from the date of purchase. As per the warranty conditions, the complainant is bound to send the vehicle for service, when it covers 2500/3000 Klms. or in between each 2½ months or 3 months. In this case, the complainant failed to produce the vehicle for paid services. This was the reason for the rejection of the warranty. At the outset, the complainant agreed to pay service charge and value of parts after the service. But when the work was completed, he changed stands and tried to take the vehicle without paying the service charge and cost of the parts. Thereafter, he did not respond to. Later, he approached this Forum.

3. The service of notice of the 2^nd opposite party has not been completed. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle released from the possession of the 1^st opposite party without making any payment?

2. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- During the proceedings, at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 566/2011 dated 29-09-2011, this Forum directed the 1^st opposite party to release the vehicle of the complainant, since the complainant has deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 8,737/- in this Forum. The 1^st opposite party duly released the vehicle to the complainant.

6. Admittedly on 27-07-2009, the complainant purchased a Honda Activa Scooter from the 1^st opposite party, which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. A5 is the owner's manual of the vehicle, which goes to show that 24 months or 24000 KMS. warranty has been provided by the 2^nd opposite party. It is also not in dispute that during the warranty period, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to get the vehicle repaired in warranty. According to the 1^st opposite party, since the complainant failed to service the vehicle in time, they are not liable to provide the warranty as per Ext. A5. We are not entertain the contention of the 1^st opposite party, because the complainant had produced the vehicle before the 1^st opposite party for its service on 20-08-2009, 19-11-2009, 04-02-2010 and 15-05-2010 respectively evident from Ext. A5 which goes to show that the complainant has produced the vehicle for periodical servicing before the 1^st opposite party. Nothing is on record to substantiate the contentions of the 1^st opposite party. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the firm view that the 1^st opposite party is to consider the repair of the vehicle within the purview of the warranty. In short, the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle repaired within the warranty period free of costs. So, the demand of the 1^st opposite party to pay service charge is against the terms and conditions in Ext. A5 warranty condition.

7. Point No. ii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant has been met squarely and adequately no further relief is called for.

8. In the result, the complainant is entitled to get the amount released in his favour. The registry is directed to release the amount to the complainant after the expiry of appeal period.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2012.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========