Date of Filing : 02.03. 2015
Date of Order : 11.01.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.108/2015
MONDAY THIS 11TH DAY OF January 2016
K. Nethaji,
Door No.1/1, Plot No.168,
Vaanjinathan Street,
Govarthana Nagar,
Meetukuppam,
Nerkundram,
Chennai 107. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Proprietor,
Didar Motors,
NO.340/654, Annasalai,
Chennai -6.
2. The Regional Manager,
The South Regional Office,
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit -01, 1st Floor,
West Wing,
Golden Heights, 59th Cross,
4th M. Block,
Rajaji Nagar,
Bangalore,
Karnataka – 560 010 (India), ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : M/s. P. Davoodu & another.
For the Opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. M.Parani Kumar (Exparte)
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle or to refund a sum of Rs.79,000/- with interest and also compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this Forum in this proceedings, the opposite parties though appeared through counsel in beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently not filed written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 25.9.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant purchased Honda C.B Unicorn (CBF 150 MA) Black colour Motor cycle with the chassis No.ME4KC09CGD8532359 with engine No.KCO9E86541832 from the opposite party on 17.9.2013 (Didar Motors), Chennai for a sum of Rs.68,407/- (Ex.A6) with registration No. TN02 AX 8436 while using the complainant found there was a problem in applying the gear and very poor mileage and chain was in Zigzag and it was reported by the complainant to the opposite party for the first service in prescribed time and the opposite party attended the complaint inspite of the attendance the same problem existed to the vehicle when he took the vehicle are in 2nd service in November 2013. In spite of several reminders over phone and personal appearance to the opposite party the complainant had not received proper rectification of the defect. Hence he took the vehicle to K.S.N.Honda Service Centre at Eekattuthannkal and informed to the complainant the defect cannot be rectified which is found to be a manufacturing defect. Based on this the complainant issued legal notice on 15.9.2014 followed up 29.7.2014 the opposite party’s representative of the complainant to bring it to the Service Centre. Based on this the complainant took the vehicle for repair and gave it to the opposite party on 8.10.2014 under job card No.86495 stating the problem was not solved. But the opposite party charged Rs.102/- for replacing the cable comp Speediom (Ex.A5) on 8.10.2014. On 31.10.2014 the opposite party had sent a SMS to leave the said vehicle for service followed by another SMS on 27.1.2015 since the defect could not rectified by the opposite party the complainant does not have the faith in leaving the vehicle the defects could not be rectified by the opposite party inspite of services attended by them. Though the complainant had filed a complaint to this forum, the opposite party having received the notice from this forum for personal appearance, they are not bothered to be present. The complainant had filed the complaint and proof affidavit furnishing the details of the defects of the vehicle that was found by him and he had obtained an expert opinion from the qualified Automobile engineer whose report along with proof that he is a qualified Motor cycle technician (Ex.A7 & Ex.A8). The expert opinion states that “the captioned vehicle found to have the defect in the main shaft and the drive shaft of the vehicle this results into low clearance because of this while applying gear, the gear engagement becomes tight and the problem of applying gear arises. This cannot be rectified without loosening its originality this is a rare manufacturing problem arising in a very few vehicles”.
5. In pursuant of the above findings, we are of the considered view that the opposite party had not appeared before this forum to make his defense and give explanation for the non performance of the new vehicle with low mileage and improper function of the gear. Based on the expert opinion and as per the evidence of record we are of the considered view that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved since the complainant was using the vehicle from the date of his purchase and kept under his custody.
6. Further the opposite parties though appeared through counsel in beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently not filed written version and not contested the case as such they remain set exparte in this proceedings, as such no contra evidence on the side of opposite parties.
7. Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. Rs.68,407/- as cost of the vehicle and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Further considering the facts and circumstance of the case we are not inclined to award any compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.68,407/- (Rupees Sixty eight thousand four hundred and seven only) towards cost of the vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.68,407/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14th day of January 2018.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 30.7.2014 - Copy of Legal notice.
Ex.A2- 30.7.2014
04.8.2014 - Copy of Postal receipt & Ack. card.
Ex.A3- 15.9.2014 - Copy of reply notice.
Ex.A4- 9.10.2014
31.10.2014
27.1.2015 - Copy of the SMS messages.
Ex.A5- 8.10.2014 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A6- 17.9.2013 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A7- 12.10.2014 - Assessment report.
Ex.A8- 12.10.2014 - Copy of receipt for Rs.1000/-
Opposite parties’ side documents: ..Nil..
.. Exparte..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
