By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party No.1 to arrange qualified service centre at Sulthan Bathery and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the expenses incurred to the complainant and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant for keeping the vehicle without doing repair in work shop and to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased an electric bike from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. The company assured one year guarantee and life long service to the vehicle. The complainant conducted free service from opposite party No.2's service centre during the month of April 2014, the vehicle became defective due to non-pulling. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 for rectifying defect, opposite party No.2 had not accepted the vehicle for repair and instructed to produce it to opposite party No.3. The complainant produced it to opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 assured to clear it within 2 days. After 15 days, opposite party No.3 returned the vehicle to the complainant without doing repair. Thereafter, as per the direction of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 repaired the vehicle and some parts are changed. On trial running, the vehicle became completely jammed due to defective service. The complainant then repaired the vehicle from outside paying Rs.1,700/- as repair charge. The complainant came to know that the services and acts done by opposite parties are negligent and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to all opposite parties and opposite party No.1's notice returned stating that “left”. Since there is deemed service, opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte. Opposite party No.2's notice returned stating that insufficient address. Opposite party No.3 appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice send to opposite party No.2 in correct address. Opposite party No.3 appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice send to opposite party No.2 in correct address and it is served to opposite party No.2 on 06.05.2015 but not appeared and opposite party No.2 also set ex-parte.
4. In the version of opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 stated that opposite party No.3 never repair or check or handle the alleged vehicle of complainant at opposite party No.3's workshop. Opposite party No.3 is an unnecessary party and entitled for compensatory cost. Subsequently, the complainant filed I.A.283/2015 to delete opposite party No.3 from the case. The I.A.283/2015 is allowed and opposite party No.3's name is deleted from the case title.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A3. Ext.A1 is the Retail Invoice. Ext.A2 is the Delivery notice and Ext.A3 series are the Lawyer Notice copy and Postal Receipts. The complainant stated about the defect of the electric bike in the complaint and deficiency of opposite parties to service it properly. In the affidavit also, the complainant stated all these things. Ext.A1 and A2 document shows that the complainant took service from outside. So the complainant proved his case. It is up to opposite party No.1 and 2 to deny the allegation of complainant. But opposite party No.1 and 2 did not appear in Forum. So the Forum is of the opinion that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.1 and 2. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to give proper service to the vehicle of the complainant in future at Sulthan Bathery or in Wayanad District and they are also directed to give Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the complainant towards the expenses met by the complainant for servicing the vehicle and also opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost and compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:30.12.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Balakrishnan. P. (Affidavit). Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:25.04.2014.
A2. Delivery Note. Dt:02.06.2014.
A3(1). Lawyer Notice. Dt:09.07.2014.
A3(2). Postal Receipt.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
