DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 16/08/2019
CC/211/2019
- K.Gangadharan
S/o.V.Balakrishnan Nair,
Kuriyil House, Kalladikode (PO),
Palakkad – 678 596 (since deceased)
- Nirmala, (Supplementary Complainant1)
W/o.Late K.Gangadharan,
Kuriyil House, Kalladikode (PO),
Palakkad – 678 596
- K.Anitha, (Supplementary complainant 2)
D/o.Late K.Gangadharan,
Kuriyil House, Kalladikode (PO),
Palakkad – 678 596
(Legal heirs impleaded as supplementary complainants
1& 2 as per order dated 24/8/2021 in IA 40/2021) - Complainants
(By Adv.K.T.Balakrishnan)
Vs
P.A.Salim,
S/o.Nabeesa Muhammed,
Parayil House,
Kodakara P.O.,
Thrissur – 680 684 - Opposite party
(By Adv.Tina K.J)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complaint was initially filed by first complainant. He died during the course of the CC and his legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental complainants (1) & (2).
- In short, complaint pleadings pertains to the grievance of the complainant upon purchasing a second hand 2012 model Enfield Bullet from the opposite party.
The complainant alleged that the opposite party aired a post in facebook for sale of his bullet which the opposite party stated as being of 2012 model, with two new tyres, fancy number, having run 36,000 kms, showroom serviced, being in excellent condition and with all papers cleared. The complainant purchased the said bullet from the opposite party after payment of Rs.84,000/-. Subsequent to purchase it was found that the bullet was suffering from a number of defects like oil leak from various parts including silencer, defective electric features, excessive smoke exhaust and basically with overall latent defects.
3. The opposite party filed version contending that the complainant purchased the vehicle after having plied the bullet for over two kilometers. The complainant had effected expert check up of the vehicle before purchase. The vehicle might have suffered damages due to rough use of the complainant and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The following issues arise for consideration
- Whether, the complainant has proved the defects in the vehicle ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Reliefs, as to Compensation and Cost ?
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documentary evidence comprised of Ext.A1 series, Ext.A2 series, Ext.A3 series and Ext.A4 to A6. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
Issue no. I
6. The unequivocal case of the complainant is that subsequent to purchase of the bullet, he found that the bullet was suffering from (1) Oil leak from various parts of the bullet, (2) Insufficient oil in the engine, (3) Excessive smoke and (4) numerous various damaged parts.
7. The opposite party had vehemently opposed the complaint allegations. He stated that the complainant had taken all precautions that a prudent man would take like plying the bullet, checking of the bullet by an expert etc. The opposite party had attributed the damages to the rough handling and misuse of the bullet by the complainant.
8. Since the opposite party had disputed the complaint pleadings in its entirety, the complainant ought to have taken out an expert commissioner to check the condition of the bullet. The documents produced by the complainant viz. photographs, messages and invoices, would not in any manner prove that the bullet suffered from any inherent damages. Even in the Ext.A3 messages, it is only the communication of the complainant that is present. There is no counter communication or admission of any defect from the part of opposite party. Even if we find that there are some damages that required repair to the bullet no evidence is adduced to prove that the bullet suffered grievous inherent defects and the same was concealed by the opposite party.
Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case.
Issue No.2
9. In the absence of cogent evidence to prove that the defects suffered by the bullet is attributable to the opposite party as alleged by the complainant and evidence to the effect that the opposite party had failed to disclose such inherent damages / defects, we are unable to hold that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Issue Nos.3 & 4
10. In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 & 2 we hold that the complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 (a) & (b) series – Printout of advertisement posted by opposite party in facebook.
Ext.A2 (a) – Original of tax invoice bearing No.H0437 dated 16/7/19
(b) - Original of tax invoice bearing No.H0442 dated 16/7/19
(c.) - Original of tax invoice bearing No.H0455 dated 17/7/19
Ext.A3 (a) to (c) series – Photographs of tyres
Ext.A3 (d) to (g) – Facebook messages
Ext.A4 – Estimate dated 16/7/2019
Ext.A5 – Receipt bearing No.5170 dated 7/8/19
Ext.A6 – Copy of Lawyer’s Notice issued to Opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Court Exhibits
Nil
Cost : No costs allowed
