Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/11/726

ARUN ALIAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HONDA MOTOR CYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ROY VARGHESE

21 Dec 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/726
 
1. ARUN ALIAS
S/O ALIAS, PULINGAMATTOM HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O, RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S HONDA MOTOR CYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO.1, SECTOR 3, IMT MANESAR, GURGAON DIST, HARYANA 122 050
2. M/S EVM AUTOMOBILES
SA ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI 19 REP. BY ITS MANAGER
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 21st day of December 2013                                                                               Filed on : 30/12/2011

Present :

Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                    President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.

CC.No.726/2011

    Between

Arun Alias, S/o. Alias,   :        Complainant

Pulingamattom house, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,

Ooramana P.O., Ramamangalam, Olimolath, Pancode P.O.,

Ernakulam. Ernakulam-682 310.) 

 

                                                And


 

 1. M/s. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter : Opposite Parties

Inida Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Managing By Adv.K.C. Biju

Director, Plot No. 1, Sector 3, Kakkattuveetil,

IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Chottanikkara-682 312)

Haryana-122 050.

 

2 M/s. EVM Automobiles,

SA Road, Vyttila, Kochi-19,

rep. By its Manager.   

                     

                                           O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.        

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Honda Motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 45,641/-. Subsequently the vehicle was registered as KL-17H 3443. The 1st opposite party offered warranty for 24 months or 32000 kms. The facts while so on 21-08-2011 the vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages to the front head light assembly, front mudguard, side cowl, front stem etc. On 22-08-2011 the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairing and servicing. Even now the vehicle is not repaired and is in possession of the 2nd opposite party. In spite of repeated requests the 2nd opposite party failed to repair the vehicle even within the warranty period. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice thereafter. But there was no response. The complainant is entitled to get price of the vehicle refunded with interest together with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

      1. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:

        The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant was not in station either at the time of the cause of action of the complaint or at the time of presenting the complaint. The vehicle will not come under the warranty since warranty is not covered for accidental repairs. The 2nd opposite party accepted the vehicle for repairs on 22-08-2011. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 13-01-2012. The vehicle was ready for delivery within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the vehicle. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant the same in the available telephone number. Since the complainant was not available and on repeated requests nobody turned up to take back the repaired vehicle. On 13-01-2012 one Mr. Paul P. Alias took delivery of the vehicle after signing full satisfaction to the repairs. On 21-01-2012 Mr. Paul P. Alias again brought the vehicle for repairs and the 2nd opposite party carried out the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          1. 3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Ext. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B10 were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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

              i.Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the vehicle from the opposite parties with interest?

              ii.Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.?

              1. 5. Point No. i. The complainant is the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-17H 3443 evident from Ext. A1. He purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 24-06-2011 which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 45,641/- evidenced by Ext. A2 retail invoice. Ext. A3 warranty goes to show that 24 months or 32000 kms warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. Admittedly on 22-08-2011 the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairs which had met with an accident.

                  1. 6. According to the complainant time and again he had to approach the 2nd opposite party to get the vehicle repaired and redelivered but to no awail. It is stated that in spite of Ext. A5 lawyer notice the 2nd opposite party did not care to deliver the vehicle for their own reasons. On the contrary the 2nd opposite party maintains that the complainant was not in India at the time of entrustment of the vehicle and there after and so there was delay in redelivery of the vehicle however the same was repaired and finally the brother of the complainant received the vehicle on 13-01-2012. The opposite party No. 2 was examined as DW1, he categorically deposed before the Forum that repeatedly they tried to contact the complainant after the repairs of the vehicle however since the complainant was not in India they could not contact him in person. In support of his contention he relied on Exts. B1 and B2.

                    7. Ext. B1 and B2 would show that the brother of the complainant took redelivery of the vehicle on 25-01-2012, after recording his full satisfaction to the repairs and also stated in Ext. B2 that the matter involved in Ext. A5 lawyer notice has been settled amicably. At the instance of the 2nd opposite party the complainant produced a copy of his passport in this Forum, it would show that the complainant was not in India to collect the vehicle after the entrustment of the same with the 2nd opposite party.

                    8. In view of the above we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We are only to reject the contentions of the complainant per se. Accordingly we dismiss the complainant. Since the first point is found against the complainant consequently no compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for.

                    Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.  

                                                                                       

                                                                             Sd/-A.  Rajesh, President.

                                                                            Sd/-  Sheen Jose, Member.

    Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

     

    Forwarded/By Order,

     

     

    Senior Superintendent.

     


     

     

    APPENDIX


     

    Complainant's exhibits:


     

    Ext. A1 : Certificate of registration

    A2 : Copy of retail Invoice

    A3 : copy of warranty policy

    A4 : Copy of Customers copy

    A5 : Copy of letter dt. 03-11-2011

    Opposite party's exhibits :


     

    Ext. B1 : Letter dt. 25/01/2012

    B2 : Letter dt. 25/01/2012

    B3 : Copy of job card dt. 12/07/2011

    B4 : “ “ dt. 13/06

    B5 : Copy of job card dt. 13/1/2012

    B6 : “ “ dt. 16-06-2012

    B7 : Copy of Job card dt. 21-01-2012

    B8 : Copy of job card dt. Nil

    B9 : Copy of job card dt. Nil

    B10 : Copy of letteer dt. 11/06/2012

     
     
    [HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH]
    PRESIDENT
     
    [HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE]
    MEMBER
     
    [HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI]
    MEMBER

    Consumer Court Lawyer

    Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!
    5.0 (615)

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!

    Experties

    Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

    Phone Number

    7982270319

    Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.