Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/309/2019

K.Suresh Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.V.S Motor Company Rep by its Managing Director and Others - Opp.Party(s)

M. Jaikumar

25 May 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 27.11.2019

Date of Reservation      : 04.05.2022

Date of Order               : 25.05.2022

 

                                               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:              TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                                 THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                                THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.309/2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF MAY 2022

 

Mr. K.Suresh Babu DCE, BBA, MCA,

S/o. N. Kannan,

No-7/A, Rangasamy Street,

Gandhi Nagar, Kilkattalai,

Chennai – 600 117.                                                                                                   ... Complainant                            

 ..Versus..

 

1.The Managing Director,

   TVS Motor Company,

   Chaitanya, No.12,

   Khader Nawaz Khan Road,

   Nungambakkam,

   Chennai – 600 006.

 

2.The Proprietor,

   Mahalakshmi Motors,

   No.3, Medavakkam Main Road,

   Keelkattalai,

   Chennai – 600 117.                                                                                                      ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. M. Jaikumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and to direct the Opposite Parties to give new TVS SPORT ES Black silver Two wheeler vehicle to the Complainant along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a new TVS SPORT ES Black silver Two Wheeler Vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 19.09.2019 for Rs.61,968/- and payment was made through NEFT transfer. The said vehicle was delivered to Complainant on 23.09.2019. On 25.09.2019 morning the vehicle could not be started hence Complainant gave complaint to the 2^nd Opposite Party office on the same day.The 2^nd Opposite Partyhad sent a mechanic who after struggling through kick start started the vehicle and Complainant was running the same. Again the vehicle could not be started at 6 pm since the vehicle’s self-starter didn’t work. He took the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite Party Company and complained about the problem. Next day when he took the vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party, Complainant was informed that the above vehicle battery was replaced with new battery. On 27.09.2019 and again on 28.09.2019 had problem with vehicle, the 2^nd Opposite Party told that there was a block in carburettor and dust in the fuel tank and both were rectified. Next day again on 29.09.2019 morning engine got off while throttling, hence Complainant took the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party by pushing the vehicle and walking on the sunny day.The 2^nd Opposite Party staff informed that the vehicle needs one day observation to rectify the problem hence he left the vehicle in the 2^nd Opposite Party shop. After coming to know that there is serious problem in the vehicle on 29.09.2019 he gave complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party TVS Company through mail. As per the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party the mechanic on 01.10.2019 took the bike to their show room. Thereafter, the Complainant used the above said vehicle for 20 to 25 KMS only however he faced lot of problems and within few days of purchasing of the said vehicle,carburettor and Battery was changed. On 03.10.2019 the 2^nd Opposite Party informed Complainant that Chief Mechanical Engineer will come by afternoon from Pondicherry, vehicle will be repaired however there was no further communication from the 2^nd Opposite party. When he questioned reason behind delay in repairing the vehicle for such long days he was told by the 2^nd Opposite party that the repair is major hence that technicians are taking much time to repair the above said vehicle. He approached the 1^st Opposite Party office and complained about the defective vehicle. Even after 17 days of purchase he could not use the above said vehicle. The vehicle was in the service centre of 2^nd Opposite party for more days than it was with Complainant. The Complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 10.10.2019 to pay compensation and to give new vehicle. The 2^nd Opposite Party sent a notice on 13.10.2019 stating that the vehicle was ready on 01.10.2019. The 1^st Opposite Party did not take any steps to attend the grievance of the Complainant being the manufacture of the above said two wheeler. The Complainant did not receive the vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party showroom even after receiving 13.10.2019 notice, since the above said vehicle having major problems and will cause troubles again and again, the Complainant asked the Opposite Parties to replace with new vehicle. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked.    

4.     The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice to them. Hence the Opposite Parties were set exparte.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.     Point No.1:-

        The Complainant had purchased a new TVS SPORT ES Black silver Two wheelers from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 19.09.2019 for Rs.61,968/- as evident from Ex.A-2. As per Ex.A-1 the said vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 23.09.2019. The contention of the Complainant is that within 2 days from the date of purchase i.e on 25.09.2019, the vehicle had started giving problem. The Complainant had categorically averred in the complaint about the various dates on which the said vehicle was repaired at the workshop of the authorised dealer namely the 2^nd Opposite Party. It is also averred that the vehicle battery was replaced with new battery.  On subsequent dates i.e., on 27.09.2019, 28.09.2019, 29.09.2019 and 30.09.2019, the Complainant faced problems in the Vehicle which either did not self start or the Engine automatically stopped and the mechanic of the Opposite Parties took for repair and returned. The Complainant was told that there was block in the carburettor and dust in the fuel tank and both were rectified. It was contended by the Complainant that the mechanic of 2^nd Opposite Party took the bike to their service centre on 01.10.2019 for repair and was not returned. Ex.A-4 is the legal notice dated 10.10.2019 issued on behalf of the Complainant.  Upon receipt of the legal notice, the 2^nd Opposite party has issued a reply on 13.10.2019, which is Ex.A-7, stating that the vehicle was taken for service on 29.09.2019 and after necessary service attended by Expert Technician and all mandatory checkups the vehicle was made ready on 01.10.2019 and was informed to the Complainant. Though it is stated that the vehicle readiness was informed to the Complainant, only after receiving the legal notice, the 2^nd Opposite Party had come forward to inform the Complainant about the status of the vehicle. However no reply was given to the various allegations made by the Complainant in his legal notice that the vehicle started giving problems on the very 2^nd day of its purchase and the difficulties faced by the Complainant in handling with the brand new vehicle purchased from the Opposite Parties. No explanation was given by the Opposite Parties as to why such problems arose in a brand new vehicle within few days of its purchase. The above circumstances would establish the case of the Complainant that the vehicle had developed problems within a few days from the date of purchase. There can be no doubt about the fact that in the ordinary course a brand new vehicle would not develop such defects, Ex.A-7 the reply from the 2^nd Opposite Party would make it clear that the vehicle is still lying with the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence we come to conclusion that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in effecting sale of the defective vehicle to the Complainant.

7.     Point No.2:-

        As we have discussed and decided Point No.1 as against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency of service and hence the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are directed to give a new TVS SPORT ES Black Silver Two Wheeler Vehicle to the Complainant or equivalent model to the value of the vehicle, failing replacement as ordered, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.61,968/- being the value of the vehicle (Ex.A-2) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

        In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite   Parties 1 and 2 are directed to give the Complainant a new TVS SPORT ES Black Silver Two Wheeler Vehicle or equivalent model to the value of the said vehicle, failing replacement of vehicle, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.61,968/- (Rupees sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of this order, to the Complainant  and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation expenses, this order to be complied by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the above amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realization.

In the result, the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  25^th of May 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A-1	23.09.2019	Invoice
Ex.A-2	19.09.2019	Receipt
Ex.A-3	-	E mail complaint
Ex.A-4	10.10.2019	Legalnotice
Ex.A-5	12.10.2019	Acknowledgment card of the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A-6	12.10.2019	Acknowledgment card of the 2nd  Opposite Party
Ex.A-7	13.10.2019	Notice sent by the 2nd Opposite Party

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT