Kerala

Kannur

CC/311/2011

KK Bharathi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pioneer Motors (Kannur) Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2012

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/311/2011
 
1. KK Bharathi,
Harisree, Edattummal, Thrikkarippoor PO, 671310
Kasargod,
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Pioneer Motors (Kannur) Pvt Ltd,
Kannothumchal, 670006
Kannur
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 D.O.F. 18.10.2011

                                          D.O.O. 29.09.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

 

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                  :                President

                   Smt. K.P.Preethakumari   :               Member

                   Smt. M.D.Jessy                 :               Member

 

Dated this the 29th day of September,  2012.

 

C.C.No.311/2011

 

K.K. Bharathi,

‘Harisree’

Edattummal,

Thrikkarippur P.O.,                                              :         Complainant

Kasaragod Dist.

PIN : 671 310

 

 

Pioneer Motors (Kannur) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kannothumchal,

Chovva,                                                                 :         Opposite Party

Kannur – 670 006

(Rep. by Adv. P.C.Pradeep)

 

O R D E R

 

Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for getting an order directing the opposite party the bill amount of inner box set `799.64 together with `17,000 as compensation and `2000 as cost.

          The case of the complainant is that on 15.10.2011 complainant purchased an inner box set for her newly purchased Honda Activa Scooter by paying `799.64.  The same was purchased as entrusted by her son.  But the inner box purchased by her son was not useful for her.  Hence on 17.10.11 the complainant deputed another person to exchange the same with an open type box. But it was informed from the office of the opposite party that no such box is available in the market. Hence the complainant requested to refund the base price of `799.64 by taking back the inner box.  But the opposite party refused to take back the box stating that there is specific stipulation in the bill that the goods once sold will not be taken back.  Complainant came to know that the above condition raised by opposite party is against the provision of law.  Hence the complainant demanding to pay the bill amount of 799.64 together with compensation of 2000 from the opposite party.

          Pursuant to the notice issue from the Forum the opposite party appeared and filed version.  The brief facts of the opposite party are as follows.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased an inner box set as per invoice No.11IV09160 for her newly purchased Honda Activa Scooter.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant herself approached set for her vehicle.  Opposite party further admits that complainant had asked to fix open type box for her vehicle instead of inner box set.  Open type box are manufactured by the Company only for Honda Aviator Scooter which will not be suitable for Honda Activa Scooter.  But the same was not possible since the Company is providing only inner box set to Honda Activa Scooter.  It was not possible to fix open type box to the complainant’s vehicle.  Before fixing the inner box set the opposite party well explained the operation of the set to the complainant.  There is no manufacturing or any other material defect to the inner box set provided to the complainant’s vehicle.  Hence opposite party cannot take back the inner box set which was provided to the complainant’s vehicle.

          On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration.

1.       Whether there is any material defect to the inner box set provided by opposite party to the complainant which would sufficient for the complainant to ask for the reimbursement of its value?

2.       Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

3.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint?

Complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant.   The inner box set is also produced and marked as Ext.MO1. On the side of opposite party DW1 was examined.

Issues No.1 to 3:

          The specific case of the complainant is that on 15.10.2011complainant purchased a new Honda Activa Scooter from the opposite party.  As instructed by the complainant the vehicle was purchased by her son who is working at Kannur.  Along with the accessories an inner box set was also fixed to the vehicle for which an amount of `799.64 is also charged.  But complainant alleges that the said inner box set is not useful for her.  Hence on 17.10.11 complainant returned the inner box set to the opposite party directly to replace the same with an open type box.   But opposite party refused to accept the inner box set stating that open type box cannot be attached to a Honda Activa Scooter.  The prayer to refund its value is also rejected by the opposite party.  Aggrieved by the same the above complaint is filed directing the opposite party to refund `799.64 being the value of inner box set along with cost and compensation.  Opposite party denied the above allegations of the complainant.  Opposite party submitted that complainant herself approached the opposite party and purchased the scooter.  The inner box set is also fixed to the vehicle as directed by the complainant herself. Opposite party submits that open type box are manufactured only for Honda Aviator Scooter which will not suit for Honda Activa Scooter.  Opposite party admits that the complainant asked to fix an open type box to her new Activa scooter, but the same was not possible.  The opposite party also explained the operation of the inner box set to the complainant before fixing the box to her new vehicle.  Since there is no complaint to the inner box set supplied to the complainant’s new vehicle the above complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          As per Ext.A1 `799.64 was charged for the inner box set.  During cross examination deposed that “Fsâ aI\mWv boxþ\v order sImSp¯Xv.  aI\v Adnbm¯Xn\memWv Cu type boxþ\v  order sImSp¯Xv.  From this version it is quite clear that as per the order given by the complainant or upon her behalf by her son the opposite party fixed the inner box set to the vehicle purchased by the complainant.  Complainant also paid the value of the box to opposite party without any hesitation.  The only complaint is that the box provided by the opposite party is not suitable for the convenient use of the complainant. While cross examination complainant specifically deposed that “FXnÀI£nbn \n¶v hm§nb inner box set-\v complaint H¶pw CÃ. Rm³ Dt±in¨ Xc¯nepff box Aà F¶pffXmWv Fsâ ]cmXn.  From this statement it is clear that there is no manufacturing or other defect which would prevent the complainant from using the inner box set.  Moreover opposite party adduced evidence to show that an outer set cannot be fixed in the particular class of vehicles purchased by the complainant and also that if the inner box already fixed cannot be used into another vehicle without defect.  The demand to take back the inner box set already attached the complainant’s vehicle will cause loss to the opposite party.  It was the duty of the complainant to see that the article purchased is suitable for her purpose.  The opposite party fixed the inner box as ordered by the complainant’s son.  When there is no defect is alleged against the product purchased by the complainant we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Opposite party cannot be blamed for the laches committed by the complainant.  Hence there is no merit in the allegations raised in the complaint and issues are found against the complainant.

          In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective cost.

          Dated this the 29th day of September, 2012.

                            Sd/-                         Sd/-                         

                        President                   Member                    

 

APPENDIX

 

Exhibits for the Complainant

 

A1.  Copy of invoice dated 15.10.2011.

 

Exhibits for the opposite party

 

Nil

 

Material Objects for the complainant

 

MO 1. inner box

 

Witness examined for the complainant

 

PW1.  Complainant

 

Witness examined for opposite party

 

DW1.  Girish Kumar V.K.

 

 

 

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

 

 

 

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.