Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2641/2009

Sri Mathew Cruz S/o late Cruz - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

R.Ganesh & Associates

03 Jun 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/2641/2009
 
1. Sri Mathew Cruz S/o late Cruz
No.19, Ramakrishnappa Road, Cox Town, Bangalore-5
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

 Date of Filing : 11.11.2009
 Date of Order : 03.06.2011
 
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
 
Dated 3rd JUNE 2011
 
PRESENT
 
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL)               ….       President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B.                                  ….       Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL)     ….       Member
 
COMPLAINT NO. 2641 / 2009
Sri. Mathew Cruz,
S/o. Late Cruz,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at: No. 19,
Ramakrishnappa Road, Cox Town,
Bangalore – 560 005.
 
(By Sri. Ganesh.R. & others, Adv.)                         …….   Complainant
 
V/s.
 
1. Suzuki Motorcycle India (P) Ltd.,
    Village Kherki Dhaula, Badshahapur,
    NH-VIII, Link Road, Gurgaon,
    Haryana.
 
2. The Manager,
    Value Motor Agency (P) Ltd.,
    No. 16/A, Millers Road, Vasanthnagar,
    Bangalore – 560 052.
 
    (By M/s. Goud & Associates, Adv. for OP2)      ……    Opposite Parties
 
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
 
 
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complainant had purchased Motor Cycle from the OP on 19.10.2006 for Rs.50,885/-. He has been using the Motor Cycle regularly. He had lot of trouble with it. He informed the supervisor about the problems and he took the Motor Cycle for servicing on 23.09.2008. Complainant completely frustrated with the continuous trouble. Complainant has sent legal notice dtd. 11.11.2008 calling upon the OP to refund Rs.50,885/-. OP neither replied the notice nor complied the terms of the notice. Hence filed the Complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,885/- with interest. 
 
2.            OPs have filed defence version stating that the Complainant used and enjoyed the Motor Cycle for a period of 2 years and having ridden 12953 Kms. without making single complaint of major break down. After having failed to maintain the vehicle for a continuous period of one year, Complainant with obvious ulterior motive refusing to collect the vehicle after servicing on 24.08.2008 from OP2. The allegations made in the legal notice are false and denied. Complaint is devoid of merits. Complainant is not entitled for refund of cost of the vehicle and prays for dismissal of the Complaint.
 
3.            Affidavit evidence are filed.
 
4.            Arguments heard.
 
 
5.            Points for consideration are as under:
 
(i)        Whether the Complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of OP ?
 
(ii)       Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief asked for ?
 
6.            Admittedly Complainant has purchased Motor Cycle in the year 2006 and he has filed the Complaint in the month of November 2009 i.e., after 3 years of having purchased the vehicle. The vehicle is not under warranty period. The Complainant has run vehicle for more than 12000 Kms. and after running such long Kms., he made the Complaint with OP about the defects or problems faced by him with the vehicle. Complainant has admittedly left the vehicle with the OP on 23.08.2008 nearly after 2 years after having purchased the vehicle. For the period of 2 years Complainant has not complained anything about the vehicle. Complainant has first time got issued legal notice in the month of November 2008 i.e., after more than 2 years of having purchased the vehicle. The vehicle has undergone free service so also paid service. Under these circumstances, how can the Complainant seek refund of cost of the vehicle. There is absolutely no merit in the Complaint. Except allegations made by the Complainant about the problems faced by him with the vehicle, there is absolutely no documentary evidence or any expert opinion regarding manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Therefore, at this belated stage i.e., after 3 years of the purchase, Complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount paid by him. The Complaint deserves to be dismissed since the Complainant has failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
 
ORDER
               Complaint is dismissed.   Parties to bear their own costs.
 
               Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
 
               Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3rd June 2011.
 
 
                                                                                  Order accordingly
 
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
 
 
 
MEMBER                                            MEMBER
 
 
SSS
 
 
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.