Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
31st day of March 2015
C.C. 420/14filed on 19/7/14
Complainant : Dr.A.C.David, Arimboor House, ATS Road,
Chalissery.
(In Person)
Opposite Parties : 1. M/s.Hero electric Vehicles Pvt.Ltd. 50,
Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New Delhi.
2. M/s.Kakkasseri Agencies, Opp.Munsiff
Court, Chavakkad.
3. M/s. G.K.Motors, TKS puram, Kodungallur.
O R D E R
By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The complainant is a Veterinary Surgeon. He purchased a Hero Electric vehicle for the use of his wife on 6/12/12 from GK Motors, Peramangalam. While purchasing the vehicle the agency offered one year free insurance for the vehicle, 3 years warranty for the vehicle, 2 years warranty for the charger and one year warranty for batteries. The agency from where the complainant has purchased the vehicle has wound-up. Then the complainant initiated police complaint and the 2nd opposite party agreed for providing service. The vehicle shown complaints on the 1st day itself. Later problems of batteries began and the vehicle kept idle for 80 days after which batteries were replaced on 23/5/13. Since the problems of the vehicle persisted the mater was reported several times to the 3rd opposite party but did not solve the problem. Then the complainant approached the manufacturing company 1st opposite party through Emails, but no relief received. The vehicle has became completely useless for the last so many months. The complainant requested to the opposite party for getting the vehicle repaired by authorized technical persons and for replacing the batteries along with issuance of fresh warranty for the vehicle. There was no favourable action taken from the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. However the notices were properly served, no proper representation was there from the part of opposite parties. They neither appeared in person nor engaged any counsels. Some workers of the opposite party used to come before the Forum without any authorization or any preparation for conducting the case. The 1st opposite party sent a version through a person before the Forum. In their version they denied all the allegations. They strictly contended in their version that there is no cause of action for the complaint and the complaint is filed with ulterior motives on false and frivolous grounds.
3. The complainant has filed IA 555/14 for giving direction to the opposite parties to conduct urgent repair works by the experienced mechanics to provide the vehicle in running condition. On that application the Forum gave direction to the representatives who appeared before this Forum to conduct necessary repairs. As per that order they conducted repairing works and a satisfaction note signed by the complainant along with acknowledgement produced before the Forum which is marked as Exhibit X1. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A7 documents marked. As per Exhibit A1 purchase bill, the vehicle was purchased from GK Motors, Opposite Peramangalam Police Station. In the complaint they are not made parties. Hence the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. As per Exhibits A2 and A3 it can be seen that the complainant has made some complaints against 2nd opposite party for refusing service of the vehicle. No document is seen produced before us for showing any liability for the 2nd opposite party to provide service to the complainant. On going through the documents produced before us from the side of the complainant and evidence given by the complainant we do not find any cause of action in the complaint against 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Being the manufacturer of the vehicle if there is any manufacturing defects, the 1st opposite party has to be held liable. For that no expert opinion is brought before us by the complainant to show that the vehicle has got any manufacturing defects. The burden is upon the complainant alone to prove his case. Any how as per the direction given by the Forum the vehicle is completely repaired by the opposite party and now it is in good condition. The only grievance pending for the complainant is that he has spent his time and money for filing this complaint and appearing before the Forum on several posting dates. For that he has claimed substantial cost from the opposite party. It is true that the complainant has spent his money and time for conducting the case, but since there is no cause of action against 2nd and 3rd opposite parties the Forum cannot ask them to pay any compensation to the complainant. However no manufacturing defect is technically proved by the complainant it can be seen from the Exhibit X1 documents that the vehicle was having some major defects.
4. In the result we allow this complaint in part and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of March 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.A1 Vehicle purchase bill
Ext.A2 Copy of notice
Ext.A3 Acknowledgement receipt of petition
Ext.A4series – Copies of e-mails sent and received – 11 Nos.
Ext.A5 Copy of Acknowledgement receipt
Ext.A6 Copy of Lr. dt. 19/5/14
Ext.A7 Postal receipt and acknowledgement (copy)
Ext.X1 – Satisfaction note with acknowledgement
Id/-
President
