D.O.F:16/10/2020
D.O.O:19/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.138/2020
Dated this, the 19th day of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Haridasan.V.V, aged 47 years,
S/o. Ambady Anthithiriyan,
R/at ‘Nandanam’ Pallikkara, : Complainant
P.O. Nileshwar,
Nileshwar Village,
Hosdurg Taluk
(Adv. P.Mohanan)
And
- Nihal Joy,
Authorized Dealer of Renegade Commando Classic,
U.M.Lohia Two Wheelers Pvt.Ltd,
Reagen Motors, Metalco Plaza,
Mangaluru- Bangaluru Highway,
Near Kannur Check Post,
- Mangaluru
- Dakshina Kannada District
(Adv. BabuChandran .K)
: Opposite Parties
- Managing Director,
U.M.Lohia Two Wheelers Pvt.Ltd,
A 79, DDA shed, Okha Phase-2,
Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
- Ayush Lohia,
Director of U.M.Lohia Two Wheelers Pvt.Ltd,
H-193, Sector-63, Noida,
Utharpradesh- 201301
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the Complainant purchased a new brand Renegade Commando Classic two-wheeler from the Opposite Party No.1, on 05.03.2018,for a total amount of Rs.1,99,722.24 and the same is registered with No. KL 60 N 8193. The Complainant also paid Rs.20,372/- towards the registration charge. When the Complainant found some defects in the function of the vehicle he tried to contact with the opposite party but he was not available over phone. Sohe took the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 at Mangaluru on 20.09.2020,but the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 were not ready to service the vehicle and the complainant was constrained to return to his native place. As the vehicle was not in running condition, it was taken in a goods carriage, up and down. Since then, the vehicle is kept idle in the residence of the complainant. The complainant is unable to ply the vehicle as it has starting trouble. There is no service station of the opposite parties in the district of the complainant and the opposite party No.1 is not available over phone. The complainant made several enquiries with opposite party No.2 and 3 at their office at Noida, but they are not making any alternate arrangement to service his vehicle and get it in working condition. The Complainant availed a loan from the HDFC Bank to purchase the vehicle and the same is pending. The Complainant had paid road tax for 15 years. The opposite parties are bound to offer service to the vehicle for at least 15 years. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the Complainant suffered great mental agony apart from monitory loss.
Hence, the complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to service the vehicle or to refund the amount of Rs.2,25,000/-the total value spent by the Complainant for the vehicle with interest and compensation and costs.
The notice sent to the Opposite PartyNo.1 served and they entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written version. Since the notices of Opposite Party No.2 and 3 returned unserved as “left”, the complainant took steps for substitute service by the way of publication. Their names were called, absent, set exparte on 28.10.2021.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is false frivolous vexatious and not maintainable in the eye of law.
It is admitted that the Complainant purchased a new brand Renegade Commando Classic two-wheeler from the Opposite Party No.1 on 05.03.2018, for a total amount of Rs.1,99,722.24/- and the same was registered with No. KL 60 N 8193 from the opposite party.But all the other averments in the complaint are false and hence denied.The Opposite Party submitted that, being the dealer of the vehicle in Mangaluru and Kasaragod, when the Complainant informed about the defect of the vehicle, they sent a team to the house of the Complainant and proper service given and after that there was no such complaint. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3,who are the manufacturers situated at Delhi closed the company without any notice, all on a sudden and due to that the supply of the vehicles, accessories and spare parts are stopped at once. The Opposite Party No.1 sustained heavy financial loss on account of the illegal act of the opposite party No.2 and 3.This forced the Opposite Party No.1 to close down the service centre and show room at Mangluru in the year 2019 itself. The allegation in the complaint that the Complainant went to the show room of Opposite Party No.1 at Mangaluru to repair his vehicle on 20.09.2020 is absolutely false as the show room and service centre was closed in the year 2019. The Opposite Party is only a dealer and they are not responsible for the defects of the vehicle. Even if the Complainant sustained any loss or sufferings, then the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are responsible for the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite PartyNo.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents, which are marked as Ext. A1to A4.
The Ext.A1 is the copy of the Tax invoice dated 28.02.2018. Ext.A2 is the copy of the Sale certificate (Form21) dated 28.02.2018, Ext.A3 is the copy of temporary certificate of registration, Ext.A4 is the Tax Receipt dated 28.03.2018. The complainant was cross examined as PW1.
The Opposite Parties adduced no oral evidence. The Opposite Party No.1 produced certain documents which are marked as Ext.B1 toB7. Ext.B1 to B4 are printed copies of some literatures regarding the vehicle, taken from Google.Ext.B5 is a copy of the basic warranty information,Ext.B6 is the copy of the photographs of atwo-wheeler vehicle (marked subject to objection), Ext.B7 is a copy of GSTR-3B submitted by the Opposite Party No.1.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the case of the Complainant is that his two-wheeler purchased from the opposite parties became defective and the Opposite Parties failed to give proper service to the vehicle. When the Complainant found some defects, he took the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 at Mangaluru on 20.09.2020, but the staff of the opposite party No.1 were not ready to service the vehicle and the Complainant was constrained to return to his native place. As the vehicle was not in running condition, it was taken in a goods carriage, up and down. Since then, the vehicle is kept idle in the residence of the complainant. The Complainant is unable to ply the vehicle as it has starting trouble. There is no service station of the opposite parties in the district of the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 is not available over phone. The Complainant made several enquiries with Opposite Party No.2 and 3 at their office at Noida, but they are not making any alternate arrangement to service his vehicle and get it in working condition.
Here, only the Opposite Party No.1 is there to contest the case. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 remained absent and set exparte.
The Opposite Party No.1 admits the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from them. But they deny their failure to service the vehicle. They submit that when the Complainant informed about the defect of the vehicle, they sent a team to the house of the Complainant and gave proper service and after that there was no such complaint.
The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, who are the manufacturers situated at Delhi closed the company without any notice, all on a sudden and due to that the supply of the vehicles, accessories and spare parts are stopped at once. The Opposite party No.1 sustained heavy financial loss on account of the illegal act of the opposite party No.2 and 3. This forced the Opposite Party No.1 to close down the service centre and show room at Mangaluru in the year 2019 itself. The allegation in the complaint that the Complainant went to the show room of Opposite Party No.1 at Mangluru to repair his vehicle on 20.09.2020 is absolutely false as the show room and service centre was closed in the year 2019.
The Opposite Party No.1 submits that they are dealers only and not responsible for the defects of the vehicle. Even if the Complainant sustained any loss or sufferings, then the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are responsible for the same.
As regards to the defect of the vehicle the Complainant did not produce any details. It is stated that the Complainant is unable to ply the vehicle as it has starting trouble. It is also stated that since 20.09.2020, the vehicle is kept idle in the residence of the Complainant. The Complainant did not take steps to obtain an expert report regarding the defects of the vehicle and show that the vehicle has such a grievous defects.
The Complainant submits that when the vehicle became defective he tried to contact with the Opposite Party but he was not available over phone. The Opposite Party No.1 submit that when the Complainant informed about the defect of the vehicle, they sent a team to the house of the Complainant and proper service given and after that there was no such complaint. But the Opposite Party did not adduce reliable evidence for that.
The stand of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the vehicle has no complaint and being used by the Complainant for his travel. If that is so, they could have proved that aspect, by taking necessary steps to obtain an expert report. They produced some photographs of a two-wheeler vehicle, which are marked as Ext.B6 (subject to objection). The Ext.B6 document cannot be accepted as a contra evidence to Complainant’s case as its authenticity is not proved. It does not show the registration number of the vehicle.
The Opposite Parties being the manufacturer and dealers, who sold the vehicle to the Complainant for price, are duty bound to give after sale service. Here admittedly, there is nobody to take care of the service of the vehicle, as all the Opposite Parties closed their shops. They cannot run away from the liability.
The practice of selling product for price and there after shutting down the company, without making arrangements for service cannot be accepted. It is need less to state that this is an unfair trade practice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that there is unfair trade practice and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which the Complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from financial loss.
The complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to service the vehicle or to refund the amount of Rs.2,25,000/-the total value spent by the Complainant for the vehicle with interest and compensation and costs.
The vehicle is purchased on 05.03.2018 and the same became defective during the period, three months before 20.09.2020. So, the complainant used the vehicle for more than 2 years. The Complainant states that the opposite parties are bound to provide service to the vehicle for 15 years. But he did not produce warranty card to prove that aspect. The document Ext.B5 a copy of warranty produced by the Opposite Party No.1would show that the vehicle had only 2 years warranty. The complainant did not raise any objection to the Ext.B5.
In this circumstance directing to refund the entire price amount would not be fair. This commission is of the view that, a total amount of Rs.30,000/-would be a reasonable amount of compensation in this case and all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay that amount to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards litigation cost to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of tax invoice, dated 28/02/2018
A2: Copy of sale certificate dated 28/02/2018
A3: Copy of Temporary certificated of registration
A4: Tax receipt dated 28/03/2018
B1 to B4: Some literatures regarding the vehicle taken from Google.
B5: Basic warranty information
B6: Copy of the photographs
B7: Copy of GSTR-3B
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Haridasan.V.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
