Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/289/2012

THE DEALER-SALES, LODHA HONDA MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. KRISHNAMOORTHY - Opp.Party(s)

V. SRI KRISHNAN

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE       THIRU.J. JAYARAM            PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                     TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                   MEMBER

 

                                                                              F.A. 289/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.28/2009 dated 14.12.2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Chengalpattu]

 

Dated this the  17^th day of MARCH 2015

 

1.The Dealer(Sales) M/s Lodha Honda Motors

   Near Railway Gate Murugan Temple,

1E, GST Road, opp.to Marva Mahal,

Chengalpattu Town & Taluk

Kancheepuram District.

 

2. The Dealer(Sales)

Head Office, M/s Lodha Honda Motors

754,  GST Road,

Tambaram, Chennai – 45

 

3. M/s Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt.Ltd,

plot No.1, Sector-3, IMT Manesar

Gurgaon, (Haryana) 122 050                         ..Appellants/opp.parties 1 to 3

 

                                              Vs

 

Mr. R.Krishnamoorthy

S/o Sh.Ramasamy

149, Indra Nagar,

Thirumani (Village and post)

Chengalpet Taluk

Kancheepuram District.                             ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opp.parties 1 to 3   : M/s V.S.Srikrishnan

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant        : M/s M.Nirmal kumar

 

 

 

 

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 3.3.2015  and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu in C.C.28/2009 dated 14.12.2010 allowing the complaint.  

2.         The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Honda Shine Motorcycle from the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are dealers and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer. Within 10  days of purchase of the motorcycle, it developed  gear problem which is due to  manufacturing defect vehicle. Selling of a motorcycle having manufacturing defect to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards monetary loss and to replace the vehicle by providing a new one taking back the complainant’s bike.

3.          According to the opposite parties, the defects were rectified and the repairs were promptly attended to by the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.             The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards the replacement of the entire gear box assembly system of the motor cycle and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.

4.        Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5.             The contention of the opposite parties/appellants would be that the Ex.C.1 which is the inspection report of the Motorcycle filed by the Automobile Engineer cannot be acted upon and that the direction of the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- instead of replacement of the gear box is without any basis and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.           It is pertinent to note that the District Forum passed an order in CMP 74/2010 dated 27.9.2010 to the effect that the motorcycle should be inspected by a mechanical technician and the report should be filed and accordingly it was inspected by an Automobile Engineer attached to Government, Central Automobile Work shop, Chennai and he has filed his report under Ex.C.1 in which it is stated that there was mechanical defect in the gear box which must be replaced. We find no reason to discredit or disregard the report Ex.C.1 and we can place safe reliance on the report  Ex.C.1 and the contention of the appellant’s counsel that Ex.C.1 was not marked through the concerned Auto mobile Engineer and so that the report under Ex.C.1 cannot be accepted,  is untenable.

7.        The opposite parties/appellants have cited the following decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

      i)     Revision Petition No.2212/2007 of Hon’ble National Commission order dated 24.8.2012 - Tata Motors Ltd Vs Anurag Sehgal and another.

    ii)        Special Leave Petition (C) Nos 21178-21180 of 2009 –order dated 24.11.2010

    C.N. Anantharam                                   ..petitioner

                                             Vs

 M/s Fiat India Ltd  & Others Etc.,      ..Respondents

8.        The opposite parties/appellants have not stated anywhere the value of the new gear box without which we cannot decide the value of the new gear box and the depreciation of the gear box to be replaced.

9.         The District Forum has awarded Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and we feel that it is on the higher side and we are inclined to reduce the award for mental agony to Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum and accordingly the order of the District Forum has to be modified. Otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

          In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the award of compensation for mental agony, to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and confirming the rest of the order.

           No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                         J. JAYARAM

   MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER