D.O.F:11/01/2022
D.O.O:30/10/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.04/2022
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Shajin Poovatta,
S/o Poovatta Thamban,
Poovatta House,
Pilicode Vayal, Pilicode (P.O) : Complainant
Kasaragod (Dist) 671310.
(Adv: Manikandan Nambiar)
And
1. Sooraj
Sales Man,
Zain Bajaj, Zain Motors,
Opp. Pakkanar Theatre,
Cheruvathur, Kasaragod – 671310
2. Shaji
General Manager,
Zain Bajaj, Zain Arcade,
Near Chandragiri Bridge,
Kasaragod – 671121.
(Adv: C.Shukkur OP 1&2 )
3.Prakasan
Service Manager,
Zain Bajaj,
Zain Arcade, New Chandragiri bridge, : Opposite parties
Kasaragod – 671121
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Bajaj Pulsar black colour motor cycle NS160 on 18/09/2021 from opposite Party showroom by paying Rs. 1,46,000/-. Within one month of the purchase of bike it is noted that the colour of bike changing to black to white. The allegation is that Opposite party cheated the complainant by giving local painted vehicle instead of the booked bike.
The complainant reported to opposite parties about complaint they admitted complaint and stated that they will repaint the bike. But complainant demanded to replace the bike for which Opposite party not agreed. The Opposite party cheated the complainant the act of Opposite party caused mental tension for which claiming new bike which is booked by complainant and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The Opposite Party No:1 to 3 filed version. The opposite parties admitted the purchase of the Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 by complainant on 13/09/2021 and denied that the colour of bike changed to white. The opposite party denied that the colour of the bike changed to white, 98% of the colour of bike is black. The case of Opposite party is that there is two type of Bajaj Pulsar NS160 one is fully black and one is part of body and wheel alloy is white and remaining part black. The complainant himself selected the bike and opposite party delivered the same. The Opposite party not made any change on the bike. The Opposite Party denied any kind of manufacturing defect to the bike. There is no deficiency in service from opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The matter is referred for the report of the expert filed his report and marked as Ext C1.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 series the bills and Ext C1 marked. The Opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1.
From the rival contentions following points arised for consideration:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the complaint? If so for what reliefs?
The complainant says that he booked for full black Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 bike. But opposite party delivered repainted bike for which complainant claiming to replace the old one to a new one.
In this case the report of expert is very important the conclusion in the report is:, Original colour of vehicle is altered by locally painting, before delivery of the vehicle, and deliberately misleaded the complainant. The black colour which locally painted padded off from the body time to time. The rear break of the vehicle behaves sticky operation which means it is not properly working may lead to major accident.
From the above C1 report the allegation that original paint of the vehicle is changed by painting over it according to demand of the customer and thus dealer is cheating the consumer is really very serious issue. This is done to make illegal gain through unjust enrichment to gain more profit that too without knowledge of the customer.
Thus there is unfair trade practice played by the opposite parties and complainant is entitled for compensation.
The complainant is claiming replace of the bike and to deliver a new bike which he is booked. But in this case complainant has no case that he kept the vehicle in idle due to defects alleged by the complainant the vehicle is in use for more than 3 years in such a circumstances replace of the vehicle is hereby rejected. But in the case this is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which complainant is eligible an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in the account. The complainant is also eligible for cost of the proceedings.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party No:1 to 3 jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of proceedings within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Failing which the Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) will carry 8% interest from date of order till realization.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 series – Cash receipts
C1- Expert Commission report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Shajin Poovatta
Dw1- Shaji. K
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar