By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that on 29-01-2019 when he approached the opposite party’s shop for replacing the defective head light bulb of motorcycle, the opposite party charged excess amount than the actual price for the bulb. The complainant

-2-

purchased the vehicle from KVR Motors, Chettappalam.  Since the warranty period is one year from the date of purchase it will be replaced free of cost.  Hence the opposite party cannot charge Labour charge from the complainant. During the warranty period the opposite party charged Rs.100/- as service charge. The complainant enquired in the main show room of K.V.R at Kalpetta he  realised that the actual rate of the bulb is only Rs.115/- and if the vehicle is under warranty period he need not pay any amount for replacement.   Hence he prayed for an order for getting compensation and excess cost of the bulb from the opposite party.

3.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed version and contested the case. The opposite party denied the statement that the complainant had purchased the motor cycle from K.V.R Motors chettappalam.  No warranty was offered to the complainant for the bulb of his motorcycle and it is very clearly mentioned on page No.45 and 49 of NOC.  As it was beyond   warranty the labour charge is also chargeable.  Usually different rated bulbs are using for the Bajaj Motorcycle.  For the last 10 years the opposite party has been working at the shop of Bran Motors. The complainant is not the owner of the vehicle.  The statement that during the warranty period of one year the labour charge is not to

-3-

be charged is not at all correct. Bulb is an electrical part so it is not included in the category of replacement part by the Company.  So, considering this the complaint may be dismissed.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1.Whether the opposite party has charged higher price for

    replacement of the  defective bulb?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of  bulb

   without  labour charge ?  

3.  Whether the opposite party is liable to pay any amount for

      compensation?

4.  Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1 to 3 :-  For the sake of convenience and brevity point No.1 to 3 are considered together.

            6. The complainant adduced oral evidence.  He was examined as PW-1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A-1 and A-2.  Ext. A-1 is the bill

-4-

issued by the opposite party to the complainant and Ext.A-2 is the Tax invoice of K.V.R.Motors dated 29-01-2019.  

7. The opposite party also adduced oral evidence.  He was examined as OPW-1 and Ext.B-1 to B-3 were marked.   Ext. B-1 is the Barcode showing the price of the bulb, issued by the company, B-2 is the usage specification details and Ext.B-3 is the details of warranty and Service Manual.

            8. Considering the rival contentions and the available materials the Forum discussed the matter thoroughly. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party charged excess amount for replacing the defective bulb and charged labour charge during the warranty period and the complainant is entitled to get free service benefit.   Here the opposite party contended that the Bulb is an electrical part and it is not included in the category of replacement part and not having warranty. On perusal of Ext.B-2, the usage specification details and Ext.B-3, warranty details& the Service Manual it can be very clearly understood about the warranty and replacement details. While we going through the warranty policy, it specifically states that it shall not apply to replacement of bulb. The Bulb is an

-5-

electrical part and hence it does not cover any warranty.  So, the argument of the complainant regarding the reimbursement of the cost of the bulb and its labour charge cannot be accepted. The complainant failed to prove that the bulb fused because of any mechanical or manufacturing defect of the Motorcycle. If any mechanical or manufacturing defects happened, the opposite party or the manufacturer of the product are liable for fulfilment of provisions of the warranty. Here the Forum found that the above complaint is only an experimental one and he does not deserve any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The points are found against the complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed.  No cost to either parties.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd  day of July 2020.

Date of Filing: 30.01.2019.

                                                                        PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

-6-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Ajith. K.                                             CCTV Technician.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Raju. A. M.                                       Mechanic.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Invoice/Cash Memo.                                             Dt:29.01.2019.

A2.                  Tax Invoice.                                                              Dt:29.01.2019.

Exhibits for the opposite party:-

B1.                  Copy of Barcode.

B2.                  Copy of Technical Specifications.

B3.                  Copy of Warranty card.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                      Sd/-

     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

                                                                         CDRF, WAYANAD.