DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 30th day of April 2010 .
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.11/2008
Abdul Hameed S/o. Muhammedkutty 20/554, Puthupallitheruvu Nurani Post Palakkad . - Complainant (Adv.Abdul Kaleel & Adv. Ranjith Krishna) V/s
1. Kichu Motors T C.49/962 Sreemoolam Nagar Chiramukku Manacaud Thiruvananthapuram. (Adv.K. Kusalakumaran) 2. Kichu Motors Near Sreekrishna Saw Mill Pazhathara Thenkurussi Palakkad (Adv. K. Kusalakumaran) 3. The Managing Director EKO Vehicle Pvt Ltd Casa Birgitta, No.10 Brundon Road Mahathma Gandhi Cross Road Bangalore. - Opposite parties (Adv.K. Kusalakumaran) O R D E R By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member. Complainant had purchased EKO Cosmic-1 Scooter, Red colour, bearing Motor No.2006040653 and chassis No.06050627 from the 2nd opposite party dated 05/02/2007. He paid the sale price of Rs.34,990/- under receipt No.254 dated 05/02/2007 and nothing remained to be paid. The scooter run through charging the battery. At the time of purchase battery has 6 months warranty and scooter has 1 year warranty after given by 2nd opposite - 2 - party. Thereafter complainant has seen some defects in the battery. On 07/09/2007 the opposite party has replaced the battery. After 10 days the battery has not worked in good condition. Thus the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and stating the defects of the battery. But 2nd opposite party has not replaced or repaired the battery. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party several times for replacing the battery. But 2nd opposite party has not taken any steps for repairing the battery. Complainant has purchased the scooter for his own use. But he cannot used the scooter for 4 months. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to repairing the scooter and to pay Rs,1,00,000/- as compensation with cost.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased the EKO Cosmic-1 Scooter. Further opposite parties admitted that the battery was replaced within 6 months. It was submitted by the opposite parties that battery was not replaced after the warranty period. Opposite parties denied that complainant has came to 2nd opposite party for repairing the battery after 10 days. Also the complainant has not send notice to the opposite parties. The complainant stated that the scooter was not useful due to the manufacturing defect was denied by 3rd opposite party. Opposite parties stated that the complainant has not obeyed the conditions and rules for using the scooter. So the scooter and its battery was not worked in good condition. Therefore the opposite parties has not replaced the battery. Contending that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. The evidence consists of the chief affidavit and documents of complainant and opposite parties. Exhibit A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of opposite parties Exhibit B1 and B2 marked.
Matter was heard. Issues to be considered are: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
- 3 - Issues I & II We perused relevant documents on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased EKO Cosmic-1 Scooter from the 2nd opposite party. Complainant stated that defect was found in the battery within the warranty period and opposite party has replaced the defective battery on 07/09/2007. But no documentary evidence was produced regarding this aspect. Opposite parties stated that battery was not replaced after the warranty period but was once replaced within the warranty period. Further opposite parties denied that the complainant has came to 2nd opposite party for repairing or replacing the battery after 10 days. The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 which is the warranty card issued by 2nd opposite party. As per Exhibit A1, the warranty of battery was 6 months from the date of purchase. It is noted that apart from oral testimony of the complainant there is no matter before us to find that the battery of vehicle is not working properly. Complainant has not taken any expert commission to prove the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. In a case where a specific allegation is made, it is to be proved by adducing evidence. As it is well settled that pleading is not evidence, the complainant has the responsibility and liability to prove his grievances by adducing evidence.
In view of the above discussions we hold the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2010. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil - 4 - Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Warranty card
2. Ext. A2 – Sales bill dated 05/02/2007
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party Ext. B1 – Copy of agreement in stamp paper Ext. B2 – Copy of Tax Receipt.
Forums Exhibits Nil Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member | | 
