This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. M. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Tulluri Ramesh Babu, Advocate for opposite party No.1; opposite party No.2 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a HF Deluxe J2 self M/w-LGR model motorcycle on 05-02-2015 with the chassis number MBLHA11AME9J05505 and Engine No.HA 11EJE9J47328 vide delivery challan dealer code 11096 for Rs 48,136/- totally with extra fittings Rs.58,540/- from the Opposite Party. on 21-02-2015 the complainant got registered the said motor cycle with the Telangana State Transport Department, Kothagudem and obtained the Registration Certificate No. TS-04-EB-6167.  The complainant submitted that the opposite Party No.1 by suppressing the manufacture year of the said motor cycle sold to the complainant as if it was make of 2015 but to his surprise it was make of 2014.  Further the complainant also submitted that the said vehicle has been giving trouble and was partly damaged due to the holes in the Engine. The complainant approached the opposite party explained about the holes and troubles due to the defects in the engine and made number of rounds around the Opposite Party No.1 for rectification of defects or replace of the said vehicle. The opposite parties has neither rectified nor replaced the motor cycle, due to which the complainant has suffered 7 months and vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties he got issued legal notice to the opposite Parties, even after receipt of the notice the opposite parties did not choose to give reply or solve the problem.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or to return the cost of the vehicle with interest @12% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages.

3.      In support of the complainant contention he has filed the following documents, and further filed Automated Online vehicle registration Search of Government of Telangana Transport Department vide the I.A.No.8/2017,  which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-6.

5.      On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared and Opposite Party No.1 filed counter through their counsel and contended that the purchase of the vehicle by making the complainant to believe that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is of 2015 is utterly false and on insistence of the complainant only the vehicle was brought from the dealer at Nalgonda so as to please and satisfy the needs of the customer, thus knowing fully well that it is brought from the Dealer at Nalgonda and knowing fully well that manufacturing year 2015 the complainant purchased the same, and nobody could expect that in the first quarter of the year the vehicle of that year would be sold and that it will be depend on the supply of the manufacturer.  With the regard to the allegations that there were holes in the engine of the vehicle resulting in to damages is false. As per its guidelines of the company, basing on the duration, its running distance the vehicle would be checked freely except charging on miscellaneous expenses.  Accordingly the said vehicle was brought to the servicing station of opposite party No.1 on 19-02-2015, 04-04-2015 and on 20-10-2015 and on the remaining dates i.e. on 27-05-2015 and 04-08-2015 the vehicle was checked in Sri Sri Automobiles which is also a authorized service centre of the opposite party No.2 in all these dates except complaining about mileage, battery, chain sound and other small problems the complainant never complained anything as alleged in the complaint. Vide IA.No.18/2017 the opposite party No.1 has filed original invoice for the service of the said vehicle of the complainant and original copy of service history and also vide IA.No.69/2017 the opposite party No.1 filed vehicle history card  of said vehicle of the complainant

6.      In support of opposite party contention filed the following documents which are marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-5.

7.     Both parties filed written arguments.

8.      Upon perusing the material papers available on record and written arguments, now the points that arose for consideration are,

Point No.1:- Whether the Opposite parties sold the said motor cycle by suppressing the manufacture year?

Point No.2:- Whether, there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in repairing or replacing the defective Motor vehicle?

Point No.1:-        

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the two wheeler vehicle HF Deluxe J2 self M/w-LGR model motorcycle on 05-02-2015 with the chassis number MB LH A 11 AME 9J 05505 and engine number HA 11EJE9J47328 vide delivery challan dealer code 11096 for Rs 48,136 and with extra fittings Rs.58,540/- from the Opposite Party. The complainant alleges that the manufacturing year as 2015 but as per records it was manufactured in the 2014. The complainant purchased the vehicle after going through the chassis number, engine number and manufacturing year those all are available on record and will be registered at the time of obtaining registration certificate. The complainant has obtained the certificate of registration on 21-02-2015 i.e. after 15 days of purchase, and  in the purchase slip, and  insurance policy Bond the year of manufacturing would be mentioned thus the question of inducement to make the complainant to believe that the manufacturing year is 2015 is baseless hence the Point No.1 is answered against the complainant

Point No.2:-

With regard to the defect of the vehicle that is the holes in engine and giving trouble for past 7 months, no proof of document is being filed by the complainant and the opposite party No.1 has filed copy of vehicle service sheet, which reveals that the opposite parties provided the complainant with free periodical services from 1^st service at 750 kilometers, second free service on 04-04-2015 at 2900 kilometers, Third free service on 27-05-2015 at 6112 kilometers, fourth free service on 04-08-2015 at 8973 kilometers and Fifth free service at 12,372 kilometers on 20-10-2015, the complainant has never mentioned that there are holes in the engine and never complained any un rectified defects with opposite parties and Sri Sri Automobiles i.e. an authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 therefore, we are of opinion that the complainant have not filed any substantive documentary evidence and not proved his contentions beyond the reason grounds, therefore the point  No.2 is answered accordingly as against to the complainant.

9.      In the result complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 23^rd day of August, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                    Member              President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

 Khammam.