BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.61/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 6^th July 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to refund the full costs of the vehicle and also for compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Yamaha Motor Cycle from opposite party No.1 who is the dealer of opposite party No.2.  As per the specification of opposite parties, the vehicle can run for 2000 KM without any stop.  But, in the present case, when the vehicle was run for 200 KM, it has stopped and there is problem with head light, it become difficult to use the vehicle during night time not only in the city, but also on highways as the headlight spread and throw was insufficient when compared to other two wheelers.  Thereby, rider is unable to make out whether there is unmarked road hump or a ditch in the middle of the road, making it very risky to ride the vehicle during night time. Throughout the complaint, the same problem is being repeated by the complainant and it is the further case that the same was referred to the senior technician of opposite party No.1 who has not properly attended the lighting system.  Hence, there is deficiency of service and there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thereby, the complainant has sought for the reliefs.
3.     Both opposite parties appeared and filed their independent version.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the vehicle manufactured by opposite party No.2 from its dealer i.e. opposite party No.1.  There is warranty period to the said vehicle for a period of 2 years or 30000 KM whichever is earlier.  There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As per the specification, lighting system is arranged and bulbs cannot be changed as requested by the complainant since the bulb which is fixed is specified by the company. Thereby, there is no manufacturing defect with the vehicle.  As such, both opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.    On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence. During evidence, complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  Likewise, the representatives of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective affidavits.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.   
5.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the problem with the head light has not been attended by opposite party No.1, as such there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, thereby, complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- Though the complainant has alleged that the opposite party No.1 has assured that the vehicle can run continuously for more than 2000 KM without any stoppage, whereas the present vehicle has stopped at 200 KM itself.  Thereby, there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and further it is submitted in the affidavit that there is defect with headlight and it is difficult to use the vehicle during night time not only in the city but also on highways as the headlight spread and throw was insufficient when compared to other two wheelers. Thereby, rider is unable to make out whether there is unmarked road hump or a ditch in the middle of the road, making it very risky to ride the vehicle during night time.  The said problem was informed to the senior technician of opposite party No.1 by name Nasser.  But, he has not rectified the problem with headlight.  The complainant further submits that the said defect in the headlight system, her son was unable to ride the vehicle and risk to his life.  As such, sought for reliefs.  Whereas, it is the contention of opposite parties that there is no manufacturing defect with the vehicle, the headlight system is being specified by the company which cannot be changed as and when the customer requested, there is warranty for the period 2 years or 30000 KM whichever is earlier.  The complainant has brought the vehicle for free service on 2 occasions i.e. on 08.11.2017 and on 09.01.2018.  In this, at the coloumn customer observation and repair inspections, there is no complaint relating to headlight or the manufacturing defect with the vehicle.  But, allegations in the complaint and affidavit evidence of complainant, there is problem from day one itself i.e. the date on which she purchased the vehicle on 29.01.2017.
8.    Further, the complainant has not made any attempt to see that the vehicle is inspected by an expert so as to enable this Forum to know if there is any defect or not either manufacturing  or otherwise.  In the absence of experts view relating to manufacturing defect or any defect for that matter.  In the absence of the complaint either relating to headlight or manufacturing defect in first service or in the 2^nd service dated 08.11.2017 or on 09.01.2018, the complainant except goes on corresponding with opposite parties in E-mail.  In the circumstances, the complainant failed to establish the manufacturing defect or any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Thereby, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs in this case.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
9. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, she is not entitled for any reliefs in this case.   Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed. 
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Di