IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2016
Filed on 01.07.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.171/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sibi Thomas 1. Popular Motor Corporation
Panavelikandathil (Bajaj Division, Alappuzha)
Sanathanapuram P.O. VI/5A, NH-47, Paravoor
Alappuzha Punnapra North P.O.
(By Adv. M.I. Faizal) Alappuzha, Represented by
Managing Director/Manager/
Authorized Officer
2. Popular Motor Corporation
785, 786, CCSB Road
Near Krishnas, Iron Bridge
Alappuzha – 1, Represented by
its Manager/ Authorized Officer
3. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akrudi
Pune – 411 035, Represented by its Chairman/Authorized Officer (By Adv. P.V. Satheesh – for
opposite parties 1 to 3)
4. Indusind Bank Ltd., Oppo. New Jayalakshmi Silks, 40/8399
M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035
Represented by its Manager/
Authorized Officer
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a Motor Cycle of Bajaj Pulsar on 11.6.2014 from the show room of second opposite party functioning under the first opposite party the authorized dealer of the third opposite party. According to the invoice dated 4.6.2014 the vehicle bears Chasis No. 10375 and Engine No. 85660. Subsequently complainant received certificate from the RTO., Alappuzha wherein registration No. of the vehicle is mentioned as KL-04-AF-8376. The owner’s manual and warranty card in respect of the vehicle was not provided to the complainant in spite of his requests. The vehicle has been malfunctioning from the time of delivery and is not roadworthy. The vehicle stalls and stops when it is driven, it has unnatural shaking and knocking sound when running at relatively lesser speeds of 30 Kmph and above. The complainant was ridiculed and made fun of by the said sales personnel and others at the second opposite party’s office whenever he approached them with the said complaints. The complainant has hardly used the motorcycle from the time of its delivery. The opposite parties have committed breach of trust, misrepresented as to true facts, caused deficiency in service in supplying a vehicle with manufacturing defects and under the circumstances a second and one. The opposite parties had suppressed material defect in the said vehicle and had caused the complainant to believe that it is a brand new one and free from all defects and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the said acts. Alleging defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle in the possession of the complainant with a new one along with cost and compensation.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The two wheeler was purchased by the complainant upon his own decision, selection and satisfaction. The complainant drove the vehicle to his home without any difficult or obstruction or dissatisfaction. These opposite parties would provide owner’s manual and warranty card to each and every customers without fail if it is available. When the complainant purchased the vehicle specimen copies of owner’s manual and warranty card stock was exhausted at the show room. Hence the first opposite party offered the complainant to serve those documents after two days on receipt from second opposite party. But the complainant did not come up for accepting those documents from first opposite party even to this day. The two wheeler has no malfunctioning or any manufacturing defect as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. An expert commissioner was appointed and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The first opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar 135 Motorcycle from the opposite parties. According to the complainant the vehicle has been malfunctioning from the time of delivery and is not roadworthy. He again stated that the opposite parties misrepresented him that the said bike is a new one and free from all defects. In order to prove his allegation on his application an expert commissioner was appointed. The expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 report, it is specifically stated that the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle as per the sales certificate is March 2013. But in registration certificate the manufacturing month and year specified as December 2013. Complainant purchased the vehicle on 5.6.2014 under the belief that he will be provided with a branch new Motorcycle. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle manufactured and delivered through the opposite parties subject to various tests by the manufacturer and after obtaining O.K. from the engineers, the vehicle will be transferred to the distributors and in the usual course vehicle will be free any manufacturing defect. While cross examining the opposite party he stated that the difference in the date is only a clerical mistake. It is pertinent to note that the main allegation of the complainant is that he was misrepresented by the opposite parties. Ext.C1 report also shows that the vehicle was manufactured in March 2013. Hence by stating it as a clerical mistake the opposite parties cannot go away from their responsibilities. As per the commission report the vehicle has no inherent defects including manufacturing defects and the vehicle is in roadworthy condition. The expert commissioner also stated that due to prolonged non use, some parts like Carburetor, Battery, need service. So from the evidence on record, we have reasons to believe that the bike was manufactured in March 2013 and delivered to the complainant after 15 months. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party had not given the owner’s manual at the time of delivery. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to deliver all the required documents at the time of delivery itself. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties had failed to deliver a brand new vehicle to the complainant. The failure on the part of the opposite parties in delivering a brand new vehicle to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. Since there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, complainant is not entitled to get a new vehicle at the same time he is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony sustained by the act of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are also directed to replace the Carburetor and battery at free of cost.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the Carburetor and Battery of the vehicle with free of cost and also directed to give proper service to the vehicle and make it in a roadworthy condition. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) : :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sibi Thomas (Witness)
Ext.A1(a)&(b) - Cash receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A2 - Copy of the new vehicle delivery note
Ext.A3 - Copy of the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance
Ext.A4 - Copy of the retail invoice
Ext.A5 - Copy of the tax license receipt
Ext.A6 - Attested copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.A7 - Office copy of complaint sent to Transport Commission along with
Postal receipt
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Talmy N.J. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of order form dated 4.6.2014
Ext.B2 - Copy of delivery note dated 11.6.2014
Ext.B3 - Owner’s manual
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
