DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 4th   day of January, 2023

Present      :    Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

                 :    Smt.Vidya A., Member           

                 :    Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                    

         Date of filing: 31/05/2021

CC 92/2021

Srijith. R,

Raja Nivas,

Pallathampully,

Thathamangalam,

Palakkad -678 102                                                -                        Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1.  The Chairman /CEO,

Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd,

1st Floor, D1 Block, Plot No. 18/2, MIDC, Chinchwad

Pune, Maharashtra-411 019

2.  Soumin Nawas,

Managing Director,

Classic Motors, 35/416A,

Illikkat Building,

Edappally, Ernakulam                                           -                   Opposite parties 

Kerala

(Opposite parties 1 & 2 by Adv. M/s T. P.Saju & Joseph Devassy)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member  

1. The Complainant purchased a JAWA motor cycle on 25/05/2019 from the opposite parties.  Crux of his complaint is that the vehicle had been giving mechanical troubles due to manufacturing defect, ever since he purchased it and the opposite parties failed to give proper and timely after sale service to him.  Other allegations include the non issuance of tax invoice for the accessories purchased along with the vehicle and poor mileage of the vehicle.  Hence he approached this Commission seeking a total relief of Rs. 77,000/-towards mileage drop, change of spare parts, physical stress in taking the vehicle to the service centers repeatedly and legal expenses.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance and filed their versions.  Their contention is that the motor cycle in question is a well established product in the market and customers are using  the vehicle over a period of time without any such complaints as alleged by the complainant.  Further the complainant has taken delivery of the said vehicle after being satisfied completely with the condition and performance of the vehicle.  The dealer had carried out Pre Delivery Inspection before delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.  The vehicles manufactured by them are marked only after the prototype of the vehicle is approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI).  Further, the motor cycle requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components at recommended intervals as mentioned in the operator's service book given at the time of sale, for the smooth running and optimum performance.  The complainant has not produced any record to show that he had regularly serviced the vehicle as per the recommended service schedule.  The vehicle was attended by the dealers/service centers fully complying with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided for it by the manufacturer regarding quality and performance of the vehicle.  Accordingly the opposite parties have given proper and prompt after sale service to the complainant as per warranty terms and charges were collected only for the work done beyond the period or terms of warranty, hence there is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.

3. Issues involved

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the vehicle?
2. Whether the opposite parties had properly attended the vehicle to solve the alleged complaints during the service of the vehicle?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs as to cost & compensation.

4. The complainant as well as the opposite parties have not filed proof affidavit or marked any documents as evidence.  The complainant have been continuously absent during the proceedings of the case. Hence the case was taken for orders on merit.

5. Issue A

The complainant has not adduced any evidence to convince us that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect, which could have been proved only with the help of an expert commissioner. Hence the allegation is not proved.

Issue B

In the absence of any documents to show the failure of the opposite parties in attending the complaints as per warranty terms, the ruling on this issue will also go against the Complainant.

Issue C, D & E

Since the issues A & B have not been proved against the opposite parties, the conclusion can be that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed.  Regarding cost, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of January, 2023.

                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                        Vinay Menon V

                                                              President 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                Vidya A

                                        Member   

                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                       Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Nil

NB:  Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.