BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 143/2007 Filed on 02.06.2007

Dated : 30.03.2009

Complainant:

S. Vijaya Kumar, V.S. Bhavan, Mukkolakkal, Nettirachira, Nedumangadu – 695 541.

Opposite parties:

1. Subha Auto Works, Rajadhani Building, Radhapura Road, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023.

    

2. Gabriel India Ltd., 29, Milestone, Pune-Nasik Highway, Village Kuruli, Taluka Khed, Pune-410 501.

This O.P having been heard on 25.02.2009, the Forum on 30.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had purchased one set of rear shock absorbers from the 1^st opposite party. On usage it was found to be a substandard one and the suspension was not working properly and its impact was directly affecting the rider. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and they firstly denied to replace the same and asked the complainant to approach the distributor who in turn insulted the complainant. But after much effort the 1^st opposite party replaced the same, but unfortunately that was also not working properly. Hence the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party and they rejected the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.

The opposite parties, in spite of acceptance of notices from this Forum, never turned up to contest their case or file version. Hence the opposite parties remain exparte.

Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 and P2. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. The expert commissioner appointed by this Forum has filed a report which is marked as Ext. C1.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the shock absorber supplied to the complainant?

    

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

    

Points (i) to (iii):- The purchase of a rear shock absorber by the complainant has been proved by Ext. P1 which shows a payment of Rs. 970/- towards the same by the complainant. In Ext. C1, the commission report filed by the expert commissioner, he has reported that the road test showed a weakened and hard performance of the units and laboratory tests showed that the shock absorber's performance was 35% less when compared with a new one.

The defects can be noticed only after using the shock absorber in the vehicle on the road and the complainant has pleaded that on usage the said shock absorber supplied was found not up to standard. The complainant has sworn that he had taken the said equipment to the 1^st opposite party for replacement and they have replaced it with a defective one. The invoice Ext. P1 is dated 01.03.2007 and the complaint has been filed on 02.06.2007. If the equipment did not have any problem, there was no need for the complainant to approach the 1^st opposite party again and again and file this complaint before this Forum within 3 months of the said purchase.

As per the commissioner's report, the performance of the said shock absorber is 35% less when compared with a new one. The allegations in the complaint and the C1 report are not challenged by the opposite parties. From the above observations, it has been proved by the complainant beyond doubt that the shock absorber supplied to the complainant is a substandard one. The deposition of the complainant stands uncontroverted as none appeared and contested for the opposite parties despite service of notice. On the basis of evidence brought on record by the complainant, the pleading that the shock absorber supplied to the complainant is defective has been proved conclusively. The very fact that the shock absorber developed defects immediately after its purchase and had to be taken to the 1^st opposite party several times is enough to hold that the shock absorber had defects. The complainant had undisputedly suffered loss in getting the replacement of the shock absorber and repeated defects. The complainant could not have the satisfaction of using a new shock absorber. The complainant has been made to suffer due to the above mentioned defect in the equipment which is entirely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who are liable for the mental strain and loss of the complainant.

In the light of the above, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 970/- along with a compensation of Rs. 2,500/-. An expert commissioner has been appointed in this case and hence an amount of Rs. 2,500/- is allowed as costs of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 970/- (Rupees nine hundred and seventy only) along with a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%. On compliance of the above order by the opposite parties, the complainant shall return the defective shock absorber to the opposite parties.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th March 2009.

S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

C.C. No. 143/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Vijayakumar.S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Cash/credit bill No. 5071 dated 01.03.2007 issued by

opposite party.

P2 - Letter issued to the complainant by opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

C1 - Commission Report.

PRESIDENT