D.O.F:22/09/2022     

                                                                                                            D.O.O:30/10/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                 CC.230/2022

Dated this, the 30^th   day of October 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Aboobacker Ameer,

S/o Abdulla, Makki House,

Kodibayal, Uppala P.O, 671322,

Kasaragod.                                                               : Complainant

                                                            And

Pioneer Motors

KMC VIII/63 A9,10,11 Near Water Authority,

Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.                                            : Opposite Party

(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

               The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a sector YAMAHA FASCINO BS6 on 29/06/2021 from opposite party show room by paying Rs. 79,069/-.  The complainant took all the free services from opposite party.  After its six service it is noticed that there is some issue regarding brake system of the scooter.  On 10/08/2022 complainant approached opposite party for service and explained the brake issue on the day Opposite party collected Rs. 1,532/- for service but brake issue not resolved on enquiry it opposite party stated that the spare parts is not available without curifing the defect complainant could not ply the vehicle and complainant availed service of other vehicles.  The act of opposite party caused mental agony and financial loss for which complainant claim Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation.

          The Opposite party filed version denying all the allegation.  The opposite party admitted purchasing of the scooter by complainant on 29/06/2021 by paying Rs.79,069/-.  All the free service was done by Opposite party without any payment.  The Opposite party denied having any defect to the brake system Opposite party solved the issue and there is no problem to the vehicle.  The opposite party denied that the vehicle is not in use or complainant used the service of other vehicles.  The opposite party denied any manufacturing defect to the vehicle and denied any deficiency in service or irresponsibility irregularity or unfair trade practice from opposite party side and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1, Ext A1 to A5 documents marked from his side.  Ext A1 is bill, Ext A2 purchase bill, Ext A3 service reader, Ext A4 workshop bill, Ext A5 Cd, The opposite party not adduced evidence.

          Following points arised for consideration in the case

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the scooter?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite parties?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

     The complainant case is that due to deficiency in service of opposite party he suffered financial loss and mental agony.  The complainant is main allegation is that the vehicle purchased from opposite party by complainant is having  manufacturing defect.  But complainant is not taken to prove the manufacturing defect by appointing expert Commission.  The complainant is having to prove the manufacturing defect.  Hence it is hold that the vehicle in dispute not having any manufacturing defect. 

          Then regarding deficiency in service.  The bike is having the complaint of breaking system.  Breaking system is one of the most important part of the motor vehicle or all kinds of vehicles.  The parts to cure the defect is out of stock in opposite party service centre.  Finally breaking pad is removed and immediately defects noted are cleared.  But there is delay in replacing the breaking system.  To compensate long delay in supplying the parts in time, vehicle is kept in idle without use complainant suffered mental tension and agony due to delay in same thereby there is deficiency in service from opposite party.  The complainant is entitled for compensation to the delay in replacing the vehicle break pad.

          Considering the facts and circumstances of the case opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled for cost of the litigation.

          In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

     Sd/-                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Tax invoice

A3- Owner’s manual

A4- Bill

A5- CD

Witness Examined

Pw1- Aboobaker Ameer

    Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                 Assistant Registrar