D.o.F:28/10/2011

D.o.O:22/3/2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.NO.283/11

                     Dated this, the 22nd    day of March 2012

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER

Mohammed Haneefa,S/o Ahammed P.K,

R/at  Raseena Manzil,  Haddad Nagar,

 Pallikkare PO, Kasaragod. Dt.                                            :   Complainant

(Adv.George John Plamoottil, Kasaragod.)

1.Manager, Kasaragod Suzuki Grand Mall,

Near Little Flower High School, Hosdurg, Kasaragod.       : Opposite parties

2. The General Manager, Service Dept.

Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt.Ltd. N.H.8, Link Road,

Gurgeon, Hariyana-122044.

(Adv.K.Purushothaman,Hosdurg)

                                                            ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

    Complainant purchased  Suzuki Motor cycle from  Ist opposite  party on  13/8/10.  But the vehicle  showed intermittent starting trouble and abnormal sound from the engine.  Therefore complainant  entrusted the vehicle for repair with Ist opposite party after 3 months of purchase.  Again the  same complaint repeated and the complainant taken the vehicle to Ist opposite party on 27/8/2011.  After examination  Ist opposit4 party told that the  main parts of the engine are damaged due to manufacturing defects.  The Ist opposite party repaired and replaced the main parts of the engine of the motor cycle and charged 11030/-  As per the warranty 2^nd opposite party is agreed to replace  or repair the vehicle free of costs against the manufacturing defects.  But due to this complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Hence the complaint.

2  According to opposite party, the complainant did not properly maintain the vehicle nor done the services properly as instructed in the owner’s , manual.  The alleged engine problem was occurred due to rough usage of vehicle and lack of proper maintenance.

3.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A5 marked through PW1.  On the side of Ist opposite party service manager filed affidavit as DW1.  Exts.B1&B2 marked.  Both sides heard.  Documents perused.

   The definite case of the complainant is that the vehicle bearing  Reg.No.KL-60/B 8023 he purchased on 13/8/2010 from Ist opposite party is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party suffered extensive damages due to its manufacturing defects and as a result he had spent 11033/- for its repair.  As per the warranty condition the 2^nd opposite party ought to have repaired or replaced the engine free of cost.

      But  in order to substantiate the case that the engine of the motor cycle  damaged due to  manufacturing defects, no expert evidence or any kind  of evidence is produced before us .  Exts A1 to A5  are not all sufficient to prove the case of the complainant.  In the absence of any material evidence, to prove the case , the complainant  fails and  hence  dismissed without costs.

Exts:

A1-Copy of RC

A2-Invoice

A3-Copy of warranty

A4- copy of lawyer notice

A5-Postal acknowledgment

B1- reply notice with cover

B2- Service details

PW1- Mohammed Haneefa.K-complainant

DW1-Satheesh Shanbhogue- witness of OP

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

eva