Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

296/2011

R.Simon Viswanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soody Motors - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi, Kalai

11 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.05.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.296/2011

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

R. Simon Viswanathan,

S/o. Mr. Ramachandran,                                 

No.1/167, Bajanai Koil  Street,

Thiruvancheri,

Selaiyur,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                       

 

   ..Versus..

 

The Manager,

Soody Motors,

Plot No.3, K.P.T.J. Nest,

Anna Salai,

ECR, Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s. K. Kalaikovan

Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. T. Ramkumar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to pay a sum of Rs.41,274.38/- being the cost of the Two-Wheeler with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for physical torture and mental agony suffered by him with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 07.10.2008, he purchased a Battery-powered Two Wheeler, Velociti from the opposite party for a total sum of Rs.41,274.38/-.  The complainant submits that the opposite party has arranged for the registration of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 09 AY 5598.   The complainant submits that the opposite party has assured that the two wheeler hold lifetime guarantee and will be given three free services and spot service for any mechanical defect.  The complainant submtis that during the first free service, the complainant has reported that there was no pick up. During the second free service, the complainant noticed that the warranty book found missing.   After due information, the opposite party attended the defect related to pick up and the opposite party informed him that the warranty book was misplaced and that they would trace and hand it over to the complainant and till date it has not been handed over to the complainant.   The complainant submits that when the two wheeler was not plying, the complainant was compelled to tow the two wheeler to the opposite party’s show room for rectification of defect.  The mechanic of the opposite party after due inspection informed that there is an electrical circuit snag and was set it right on payment.   Since, there is  no warranty.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the opposite party that the battery is not functioning and requested the opposite party to rectify the defects and replace the battery on free of cost since, the opposite party has assured the life time warranty at the time of purchase.  The complainant submits that since the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects and replaced the battery at free of cost he issued notice dated:28.10.2010 for which, the opposite party sent reply dated:29.10.2010.  The complainant submits that the motor cycle is not functioning and not in use and is kept idle in the house.   The complainant submits that on the assurance of the lifetime warranty, the complainant has purchased the motor cycle.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant purchased the motor cycle on 07.10.2008.  But the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.36,750/- and not Rs.41,274.38/-.  The opposite party states that the allegation of lifetime warrant is false and imaginary.  The opposite party assured the warranty period for the vehicle only for 360 days or 12,000 kms. from the date of purchase and for the battery, the warranty is only for 180 days or 6,000 kms whichever is earlier.  The opposite party states that the letter dated:28.10.2010 alone sent for the first time by the complainant and for which, the opposite party issued reply dated:29.10.2010 in detail.  The complainant brought the vehicle for repair after the expiry of warranty period and crossing the prescribed kilometres.  Hence, the complainant was requested to pay the service charges.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of sum of Rs.41,274.38/- towards the cost of the two wheeler with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 07.10.2008, he purchased a Battery-powered Two Wheeler, Velociti from the opposite party for a total sum of Rs.41,274.38/-.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, invoice, it is very clear that the cost of the battery motor cycle is Rs.36,705/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has arranged for the registration of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 09 AY 5598.  Ex.A6 is the copy of R.C. Book.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has assured that the two wheeler hold lifetime guarantee and will be given three free services and spot service for any mechanical defect.  But the complainant has not produced any record to prove the lifetime guarantee and for the assurance of spot service mechanical defect by the opposite party.  

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that during the first free service, the complainant has reported that there was no pick up. During the second free service, the complainant noticed that the warranty book found missing.  After due information, the opposite party attended the defect related to pick up and the opposite party informed him that the warranty book was misplaced and that they would trace and hand it over to the complainant and till date it has not been handed over to the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainant is that when the two wheeler was not plying, the complainant was compelled to tow the two wheeler to the opposite party’s show room for rectification of defect.  The mechanic of the opposite party after due inspection informed that there is an electrical circuit snag and was set it right on payment; since, there is no warranty.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the opposite party that the battery is not functioning and requested the opposite party to rectify the defects and replace the battery on free of cost since, the opposite party has assured the life time warranty at the time of purchase.  But on a careful perusal of records, there is no life time warranty or guarantee in this case.  On the other hand, for the battery only warranty is for 180 days as per Ex.A7 and Ex.B1.  Further the contention of the complainant is that since the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects and replaced the battery at free of cost he issued notice dated:28.10.2010 for which, the opposite party sent reply dated:29.10.2010 as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A7 respectively.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the motor cycle is not functioning and not in use and is kept idle in the house.   The opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects and replace the battery which caused great mental agony and inconvenience.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on the assurance of the lifetime warranty, the complainant has purchased the motor cycle.  But there is no record.  Equally, the opposite party assured various services including fault attendance but refused to rectify the defects on free of cost amounts to deficiency in service.  On the other hand, it is very clear from the records that as per Ex.A7 & Ex.B1, the warranty is applicable only for 360 days or 12,000 kms.  In this case, the complainant used the vehicle for more than 500 days eventhough he has not crossed 12,000 kms.   Equally, the battery warranty is only for 180 days or 6,000 kms.  In this case, the vehicle has already has been crossed 7,000 kms and 500 days.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant used the vehicle for a long period of more than 105 days and 7,000 kms.  Hence, the complainant ought to pay the service charges.

8.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant purchase the motor cycle on 07.10.2008.  But the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.36,750/- and not Rs.41,274.38/- which is also seen from Ex.A1.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of lifetime warranty is false and imaginary.  The opposite party assured the warranty period for the vehicle only for 360 days or 12,000 kms. from the date of purchase.   Equally, for the battery, the warranty is only for 180 days or 6,000 kms whichever is earlier.  In this case, the complainant had the complaint of repair only on 7.10.2010.  But no document filed.  On the other hand, the letter dated:28.10.2010 alone issued for the first time.  For which, this opposite party issued reply dated:29.10.2010 in detail.  The complainant brought the vehicle for repair after the expiry of warranty period and crossing the prescribed kilometres.  Hence, the complainant was requested to pay the service charges.  The complainant without paying the service charges, filed this complaint for replacement of battery and rectification of other defects which is out of the scope of warranty.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in any manner.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	07.10.2008	Copy of retail invoice
Ex.A2	07.10.2008	Copy of receipt Nos.53 & 55
Ex.A3	2005-2009	Copy of Family Ration Card
Ex.A4	28.10.2010	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A5	28.10.2010	Copy of receipts of Franch Local Express & Repute Express
Ex.A6	07.10.2008	Copy of R.C. Book
Ex.A7	29.10.2010	Copy of reply from the opposite party
Ex.A8	24.11.2010	Copy of reply from the opposite party
Ex.A9	07.12.2010	Copy of reply from the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		Copy of warranty conditions of the ultra Velocity Vehicle purchased by the complainant
Ex.B2	14.10.2010	Copy of letter of the complainant sent to the opposite party

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT