DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER. DATE OF FILING: 06.08.2022.
CC/140/2022
Satheesh P. Sadanandan, - Complainant
S/O. P.S.Sadanandan,
Perumyalil House,
Age:36, Thenkara P.O,
Chirappadam,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad-678 582..
(Party-In-Person)
Vs
1. PBM Automobiles, -Opposite Parties
Mahindra Authorised Dealer,
Coimbatore Road,
Near Sbi, Meena Nagar,
Kalmandapam,
Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv. P.Sreenath Sankar)
2. Chola Motors,
Vps Plasa, Kannur Road,
Puthiyangadi, Pavangad,
Kozhikode-673 021.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
AUTHORED BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant purchased a Mahindra ‘TREO’ Electric Autorickshaw on 07.12.2019 from the 2nd opposite party. When the charging unit of Xicom brand supplied along with the vehicle got damaged on 13.04.2022, he approached the 1st opposite party for replacement. Since the said item is not covered under warranty, 1st opposite party agreed to replace it with the same brand for a cost of Rs.18,000/-. But the complainant insisted for “Amarraja” brand charging unit manufactured by ‘AMARON’, which was denied by the opposite party as they were not holding the stock of the same. According to the complainant, he suffered loss of income from the Autorickshaw for the period from 16.04.2022 to 31.05.2022, due to this, and finally, he had to purchase the same from Pathanamthitta on 31.05.2022.
Aggrieved by this, he approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.34,500/- towards loss of income along with Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony apart from Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party entered appearance, but failed to file their version within the statutory period. The 2nd opposite party did not enter appearance, hence was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A5 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice for charger assembly issued by M/s.Bharath Motors, Mylpra, Pathanamthitta, Ext.A2 is the tax invoice of the vehicle purchased from the 2nd opposite party, Ext.A3 is the copy of the front page of the passbook of the SB A/c of the complainant with ESAF Bank, Mannarkkad, Ext.A4 is the tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party on 19.07.2022 for Rs.118/- and Ext.A5 is the tax invoice for Rs.1,510/- issued by the 1st opposite party on 20.10.2022.
4. As per the order in interim application No.352/2023, the complainant was cross examined as PW1 by the 1st opposite party and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked through confrontation. Ext.B1 is the user’s manual of TREO vehicle and Ext.B2 is a series of vehicle service history sheets of the complainant’s vehicle maintained by the 1st opposite party.
5. As per the pleadings of the complainant, the only grievance of the complainant is that he was not provided the replacement of the charging assembly unit of his choice. The charging unit supplied by the manufacturer along with the vehicle was of Xicom brand and as per the statement of the complainant, it was working well from the date of purchase till 13.04.2022. ie., more than 28 months. Hence, the reason why he was insisting another brand is not all clear. Further the authorised dealers/service centre is generally & expected to keep the same brand of spares which are provided by the manufacturer. Hence, the demand for another brand of his choice cannot be imposed on the opposite party that too when the item is not covered under warranty. If the complainant was so particular about a brand, he could have arranged for the same from elsewhere instead of insisting it from the 1st opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Apart from the grievance mentioned above, the complainant raised so many other issues in the proof affidavit and the argument notes filed by him which are not part of his original complaint. Hence, these were not taken on record of this Commission.
6. As the complainant failed to prove a prima facie case against the opposite parties, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the absence of the author in open court on this the 16th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON V., PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of the Retail Invoice Cash/Credit for charger assembly issued by M/s.Bharath Motors, Mylpra, Pathanamthitta for Rs.17,700/- dated 31.05.2022.
Ext.A2: Copy of the tax Invoice of the vehicle purchased from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.2,60,383/- dated 04.12.2019.
Ext.A3: Copy of the front page of the passbook of the SB A/c of the complainant with ESAF Bank, Mannarkkad.
Ext.A4: Copy of the tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party on 19.07.2022 for Rs.118/-.
Ext.A5: Copy of the tax invoice for Rs.1,510/- issued by the 1st opposite party on 20.10.2022.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: User’s manual of TREO vehicle.
Ext.B2: Copy of the series of vehicle service history sheets of the complainant’s vehicle maintained by the 1st opposite party.
Witness examined from the side of the complainant: PW1, Satheesh.
Cost : Nil/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)ofs the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
