Date of filing : 08-02-2013
Date of order : 06-05-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.53/2013
Dated this, the 6th day of May 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
M.Chandran, S/o. Late.M.Kunhiraman, : Complainant
Ram Nivas, Madikkai.Po.
Nileshwar.
(Adv.Benny Jose, Kasaragod)
1 Pace Motors, Mangalore Road, : Opposite parties
Adkkathbayal, Kasaragod. 671121.
2Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India(P) Ltd,
Plot No.1. Sector.3, IMT Manesar Dist.
Gurgaon. 122050 Haryana,
(Adv.Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod.)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of Sri.M.Chandran is that he has purchased a Honda Activa Scooter from Ist opposite party’s show room on 24-09-2012. The Honda Activa Scooter purchased by the complainant was manufactured by 2nd opposite party, the sales executives of opposite party No.1 made the complainant believe that the vehicle is having very good performance so he purchased the same. But after one week of purchase the vehicle had starting trouble and once when the complainant tried to start the vehicle, had an accident by hitting on a pipe. So the complainant has given the vehicle for first service on 27-11-2012 with opposite party No.1 as it is an inconvenience for him to take the helmet in hand. Thereafter whenever the complainant tried to contact the opposite party No.1 through telephone nobody attended the calls. Opposite party No.1 unnecessarily delayed the repair till 18-12-2012 complainant suffered inconvenience for inviting his guests for house warming. Opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1045/- for Ist service. Even after the service starting trouble continues. The helmet was not returned back . Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of Honda Active Scooter. But opposite party denied that it’s start up switch became faulty. It is also denied by opposite party No.1 that the complainant has kept his helmet with the dealer as alleged. Opposite party denied the suggestion that evenafter delivery, the starting trouble continued. According to opposite party this case is filed inorder to claim money on hearing about award of compensation in other related consumer cases, wherein Pace Motors is the opposite party.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. The service bill dated 18-12-2012 is marked as Ext.A1, Owners Manual is Ext.A2. Complainant was cross-examined by the counsel of opposite party No.1. Opposite party produced Ext.B1 document. Both sides heard and documents perused. The main question raised for consideration are:-
1 Whether there is deficiency in service (Delay in delivery, mis beheaviour
refused to return the helmet) as alleged?
2. If so what is the relief?
4. Issue No.1: Complainant purchased a “Honda Activa” Scooter on 24-09-2012 from opposite party No.1 believing that it has a good performance. But unfortunately within a few days it start switch became faulty and had a minor damage so the complainant took the vehicle for first service opposite party No.1 agreed to return the vehicle within 3-4 days. In the meanwhile complainant tried to contact opposite party No.1 through telephone but nobody attended it. When he approached opposite party No.1 directly it is informed to him that the vehicle is not ready for delivery. Complainant’s house warming was scheduled to be held at that time he suffered inconvenience for inviting guests.
5. The ‘Honda Activa Scooter’ is considered to be a defect free, high rated product highly moving in the society for the last many years. Dealers usually assures that ‘No complaints for the first 5 years’. Anyway this ‘Honda Activa’ conquered the public, especially all age groups. But it is surprising that the subject matter of this complaint had starting switch faulty within one week of purchase. Since the Honda Motors earned “good will” of the public as soon as this product is launched. Eventhough the rate is higher than other companies two wheelers. Complainant paid more inorder to assure the quality and thereby avoid extra loss and mental agony by regular complaints. Yet the complainant has to face starting switch faulty within few days of purchase and thereby caused inconvenience to him for inviting guests for his house warming. A vehicle having 5 years warranty had complaints within one week of purchase. Complainant took the vehicle for the 1st service with opposite party No.1. Opposite party not only failed to deliver the vehicle on the date agreed but failed to convince the reason for delay. This amounts to deficiency in service. Branded companies are only aiming at large quantity sale only but not customer satisfaction; After sale service is considered as nothing but an ‘irritating’ to them. Opposite party No.1 shouted dissatisfaction while hearing complaints from customer. After repair, opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1045/- for the first service instead complainant expected free service. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant. No contra evidence is produced by opposite parties. The documentary evidence produced before the Forum proves the case of the complainant. Hence the loss of the complainant should be compensated.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.800/- the price of Helmet with Rs.3000/- as cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Invoice.
A2.Owner’s Manual.
B1.Job Card.
PW1.M.Chandran.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
