DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  22^nd  day of  May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 18/11/2019  

                         CC/265/2019

Abeer,

S/o.Abdul Khadar,

Chittadi Veedu,

Chittadi PO,

Alathur, Palakkad                                            -                       Complainant

                             (By Adv. Alimuthu M.)

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Manager,

Pannivelal Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Vadakkancherry (PO),

Alathur Taluk, Palakkad

2. Pinnacle Motros Works Pvt.Ltd.,

NH 47, Mannuthi Bypass, Thrissur

(Dealer of Suzuki Motors India Pvt.Ltd.)

3. Suzuki India Motors India Pvt.Ltd.

Kherkidhaula Village, Badshahpur,

N.H.8, Link Road,

Gurgaon – 122 050 – Haryana                            -                       Opposite parties  

(OP1 by Adv. Saju Abraham,

 OP2 No representation

  OP3 by Adv. M/s.LPJ & Partners LLP & Baby P. Antony)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Abridged pleadings are that the complainant purchased a motor cycle manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party.  Subsequent to purchase of the vehicle complainant came to understand that the vehicle had suffered damages in the floods of 2018 and as a result the battery was faulty and vehicle developed trouble starting. This trouble persisted without any redressal whatsoever and hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking for return of cost of the vehicle and for incidental reliefs.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed version. They contended that the vehicle of the complainant did not suffer from any damages as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had brought the vehicle for service only twice. During the service of 1028 km (1^st service) and 3089 km (2^nd) the vehicle was not suffering from damages/complaints. Thereafter the complainant approached this OP with complaint of damaged battery and  battery was replaced. Battery was replaced only because the complainant refused to undergo any testing with the 1^st O.P. and was insistent upon replacement. Thereafter the complainant had not approached any service station of 3^rd opposite party. The vehicle is not suffering from any damages and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP 3 has filed written statement  stating that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing  defect and that the complaint is only liable to be dismissed.  
4. Issues that  arise for consideration are as herein below:

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving manufacturing defect or that the vehicle was suffering due to damages caused by floods?
2. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

4.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)     Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and marking of Ext.A1 to A3.   Complainant was examined as PW1. 

            Marking of Ext.A2 was objected to on the ground that it was seen to be written and signed by the complainant himself. Ext.A2 is a certificate issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party stating that he had witnessed his battery being charged in his presence. The said document contains the sign of complainant and  seal and signature the first opposite party. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in marking the said document. Further the first opposite party has no complaint that Ext.A2 is a forged  document. It is true that considering the nature of the said document, this document should be in the custody of the O.P. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that marking and reliance of the said document will not illegally affect the outcome of the case. Hence, objection of OP1 in marking Ext.A2 is overruled.

   (ii)                OPs 1 & 3 filed proof affidavit. O.P.1  marked Exts.B1 to B4.  

Marking of Ext.B2 is objected as it is not applicable to the type motorcycle in dispute. Ext.B2 (a) & B2(b)  are objected to on the ground that does not pertain to the vehicle in question. In order to answer this allegation the first opposite party produced Ext.B2 service manual  applicable to bike bearing model UZ125L7(2017). It is to be noted that Ext.B1 is the vehicle history pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant. It shows that the vehicle of the complainant is of the model UZ125 EH.  The front sheet of the Ext.B2 shows that this manual is applicable to UZ125EH/EE. Hence we reasonably presume that this manual is applicable to the vehicle of the complainant.

 (iii)     Report of the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.

Ext.C1 was objected by O.P.1 on the ground that the same can be marked only through the person who issued it. It is true that in a civil proceedings marking of a document is not the same as proving the contents therein. But in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that this Commission is not bound by the strict tenets of Indian Evidence Act, objection of the OP1 is overruled.              

Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         Complainant’s case is that battery of the scooter suffers from damage due to water logging during the flood of 2018 and hence the self-starter of the vehicle was not functioning. In order to substantiate his case the complainant took out an expert commissioner. The commissioner inspected the vehicle and filed a report stating that even though the vehicle was not in a starting condition and that the battery fitted in the vehicle was found to be dead condition, on replacing with a new battery, the vehicle started. Thereafter when the dead battery was charged it was found to charge only upto 14.3  volts which is less than the maximum required voltage of 14.7 volts.

7.         Complainant was examined as PW1. Relevant portions of the complainant’s deposition are as follows:

a)         Page 3,  lines 5 to 16:  h­n  1..mw FXnÀI£n repair sNbvXv X¶Xn\vtijw h­n Øncambn HmSn¡p¶p­v. Rm\Ã. ho«pImcmWv use sN¿p¶Xv. AXnsâ service Imemh[n¡I¯v proper Bbn service \S¯p¶p­v.    AXn\v tijw  GsX¦nepw Xc¯nepÅ ]cmXn Hcp service centre epw t_m[n¸n¨n«nÃ. ChnsS \n¶v hml\w repair sNbvXv In«nbn«v 3 amkw Ignªv h­n \à condition BsW¶v I½oj\n Rm³ report  sNbvXn«p­v. 2018se shÅs¸m¡¯n shÅw Ibdnsb¶ [mcWbnemWv h­n amÁn thWsa¶v Bhiys¸Sp¶sX¶v ]dªm icnbmWv.

Thus is clear that after the battery was replaced the vehicle is being put to use continuously. Proper service is being done. There after he has not raised any complaints with any service centres. He further states that his allegations are based on a presumption that the vehicle suffered water damages during the floods of 2018.

b)         Page 6, lines 2 to 17:   1..mw FXnÀI£n Øm]\¯n \n¶pw h­n service sNbvXp In«nÃmsb¶v F\n¡v tXm¶nbn«p­v. GsX¦nepw service centre t]mbn h­nbpsS tISp]mSpIÄ Rm³ ]cntim[n¨v repair sN¿m³ {ian¨n«nÃ. hml\w 1..mw FXnÀI£nsb G¸n¨m repair sN¿m³ A\phZn¨m AXv repair sNbvXp Xcm³ X¿mdmsW¶v ChnsS Bt£]w t_m[n¸n¨n«pÅ Imcyw a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v.  Hcp hÀjt¯mfw ]cmXn¡mcsâ I¿neap hml\w 1..mw FXnÀI£nsb G¸n¡p¶Xn\v ap¼v I½oj³ ]cntim[nt¡­XmsW¶v 1..mw FXnÀI£n Bhiys¸« kwKXn F\nbv¡dnbmw. I½ojWÀ ]cntim[n¡p¶Xn\v ap¼mbn hml\w D]tbmKn¡msX Hcp hÀjt¯mfw \n¶n«p­v.

Complainant further deposed that he “felt” that the 1^st O.P. would not carry out service of his vehicle.

Even though in his re-examination, the complainant has stated that the vehicle was kept idle for over one year because of  draining of the battery, it is to be noted that the complainant has, in his deposition, clearly stated that he failed to approach the opposite parties as he was under the impression that he would not receive good service. Mere apprehension of a party cannot tantamount to a fact.  Further he has unequivocally stated that after replacement of battery, the vehicle was in a good running condition and the same was being put to use by his family members.   

Read in conjunction with his deposition regarding putting the vehicle to continuous use, statement of the complainant in re-examination that the vehicle was kept idle for one year owing to fault of battery is only an after thought.

8.         Ext.C1 Commission Report stands uncontroverted. The motorcycle started when the battery was changed. Therefore we can come to a conclusion that the motorcycle per-se does not suffer from any manufacturing defect.  He has stated that the maximum charging level is 14.7 volts and that maximum level could not be attained. But we find that the observation of the Expert Commissioner regarding the charging of battery is not enough or conclusive to conclude that the battery is defective. It may be true that the battery is not charging upto is maximum capacity. But the expert has not stated the minimum level of charging and the extent of retention of the charge. Without these findings as well, we cannot come to a conclusion that the battery is defective.

9.         In order to answer this finding of the Expert Commissioner, the first opposite party produced Ext.B2 service manual  applicable to bike bearing model UZ125L7(2017). The part in Ext.B2 dealing with charging of battery is shown in the part title 1J-5 charging system. Portion that deals with voltage is shown to be between 13.8 to 14.8 volts. Eventhough the counsel for complainant argued that this document proves that the range of battery is between 13.8 V to 14.8 V, mere arguments would not suffice as these are technical matters to which we can’t apply judicial notice. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, O.P.1’s failure to adduce oral evidence to clarify the condition of the battery or the contents of Ext. B2 is not vital or fatal considering that the complainant himself has failed to substantiate his case.

10.       Aforesaid being the facts, it is necessary to balance the evidence adduced by the parties. Complainant has submitted that at present the vehicle is in good running condition and is being put to use by the family members of the complainant. He has stated further that he failed to approach the 1^st O.P. based on an apprehension that they will not carry out works of the vehicle. He further apprehends (as opposed to knowledge) that the trouble with the vehicle could be due to flood affliction.

11.       It can be seen that battery of the vehicle had to be replaced. There is a dispute whether the battery was replaced once or twice. No evidence is forth coming to prove how much times the battery was changed. But fact remains that the vehicle had run for over 3000 kms before the battery developed complaints.

12.       Thus we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency with the battery or the vehicle.

            Issue Nos.2 & 3

13.       Complainant having failed to prove his case, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.  Holding thus, this complaint is dismissed.

            Issue Nos.4

14.                   In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd day of May, 2023.    

      Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Original loan document dated 27/9/2018  

Ext.A2 –  Original certificate dated 1/11/18

Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyers notice and acknowledgments

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 –  Vehicle history chart   

Ext.B2 –   Original of manual

Ext.B2(a) –Page showing 1J-5 charging system in Ext.B2  

Ext.B2 (b) – Page showing 9 (d) – 2 exterior parts   

Ext.B3  – Original invoice dated 15/5/2018  

Ext.B4 -   Copy of Ext.B3

Court Exhibit: 

C1 – Commission Report dated nil filed by Sahadevan V.A., JRTO.

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 – Abeer A. (Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: 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 will be weeded out.