CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 274/2012
Tuesday, 18th day of February, 2014
Petitioner : George Sebastian,
S/o. P.J. Sebastian,
Puthenpurackal House,
Kuruvamoozhy P.O.
Erumeli
(Adv. J.P. Pious)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.
No.3-E-2,
3rd Floor, Saniya Plaza,
Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road,
Near K.S.R.T.C Bus Stand,
Kochi -682001.
2) M/s. Jubily Hero,
Pukadiyil Buildings,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Nagampadam,
Kottayam 686 006.
3) Indo Jap Agonies,
Authorised S.S.P.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd,
Parackal Building, N.H. 220,
Kanjirappally 686 507.
(Adv. K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Case of the petitioner filed on 10/09/2012 is as follows.
Petitioner on 20/01/2012 purchased a new Hero Honda CBZ XDream from 3rd opposite party who is an authorized dealer of 1st and 2nd opposite party by paying Rs.63,671/-. But within a short time the motor cycles developed problems and petitioner repair minor faults. According to opposite party on 29/06/2012 the engine got jammed and the vehicle could not be moved and petitioner contacted the 3rd opposite party and petitioner entrused the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party. Motor cycle was repaired by the technicians of the 3rd opposite party only after 16 days. According to petitioner after the repair of motor cycle, it was performing only sub optimally with knocking sound and gear problems and there was no smooth riding. On 29/07/2012, the motor cycle got into trouble again and the engine got jammed and petitioner has to towed the motor cycle to the 3rd opposite party. According to petitioner the motor cycle got repaired. Only after 27 days but on the same day itself while petitioner took the vehicle for a ride, the engine got stuck. On intimating the 3rd opposite party they took the motor cycle to the service station in a pick up van. According to petitioner, opposite party delivered a sub standard vehicle and it is not a new vehicle. The motor cycle developed all the complaints and defects within 6 months of the purchase and within free service period. According to petitioner opposite parties delivered a sub standard and inferior second hand motor cycle or a motor cycle with manufacturing defect. The act of opposite party is an unfair trade practice. Hence this petition is filed by petitioner for an order of directions to the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle with compensation and cost.
Notice to opposite party 1 and 2 were served but they failed to contest the case.
3rd opposite party filed version. 3rd opposite party admitted that on 29/06/2012 the engine of the motor cycle got jammed and 3rd opposite party repaired the same. According to 3rd opposite party, the breakdown of the motor cycle may occur due to several reasons and such troubles may occur rarely. And the 3rd opposite party done the service of the vehicle with full sincerity. According to 3rd opposite party there may be some manufacturing defect in the petitioner’s motor cycle and 3rd opposite party is not liable for the same. And he is only a sub dealer and an authorized service centre for the 1st opposite party. According to 3rd opposite party they are not liable for any damages sustained by the petitioner and 3rd opposite party done the service of the vehicle with full sincerity. And there is no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consist of the affidavits of petitioner and 3rd opposite party, and Ext.A1 to A4 documents from the side of petitioner and Ext.B1 and B2 documents from the side of 3rd opposite party. Argument notes were filed by petitioner and 3rd opposite party.
Point No.1
The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party supplied a defective Hero Honda made CBZ XDream bike to the petitioner. The purchase of the motor cycle is proved by Ext.A1 invoice. A3 series were the receipts issued by the 3rd opposite party on three occasions of service. From Ext. A3 series document it can be seen that vehicle was entused for service on three occasions, that is on 29/06/2012, 30/07/2012, 25/08/2012. From Ext.A1 document it can be seen that the vehicle was purchased on 20/01/2012. The series of troubles and break down of a brand new vehicle within few months of purchase shows that the vehicle delivered to the petitioner is of substandard quality. Admittedly the vehicle was lying with the 3rd opposite party since 25/08/2012. Opposite party 1 and 2, the manufacture and dealer were not even appeared or even contested the case of the petitioner with regard to the allegation of manufacturing defects. So petitioner’s allegation of manufacturing defects with the vehicle stands proved.
Without saying what had happened caused much mental pain and suffering to the petitioner. Petitioner towed the vehicle on three occasions. The petitioner has also spent amounts for paying road tax and insurance of the vehicle. So petition is to be compensated. So Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 petition is allowed. In the result,
- Opposite party 1 and 2 are ordered to replace the defective motor cycle with brand new motor cycle of the same model OR in the alternative opposite party 1 and 2 are ordered to refund Rs.63,671/- the price of the motor cycle to the petitioner.
- Opposite party 1 and 2 are ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as directed the award amount will carry 10% from the date of petition till realization.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of Indo-Jap Agencies invoice no.939
Ext.A2 : Photocopy of registration certificate KL34 B 3345
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of job card (3 series)
Ext. A4 : Photocopy of insurance certificate
Ext.A5 : Letter BPCLD/R/2011/02587 dtd. 11/01/2012
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.B1 : Photocopy of job card no.10667 dtd. 26/06/2012 from Indo – Jap Agencies
Ext.B2 : Photocopy of job card no.1120 dtd. 30/07/2012 from Indo – Jap Agencies
By Order
Senior Superintendent
