DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the   28^th  day of November, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 01/07/2019    

     CC/190/2019

Geetha Thankappan,

W/o.T.G.Thankappan,

“Geetham”

41/1530, Robinson Road,

City Post, Palakkad – 678 014                                    -           Complainant

(By Adv.M/s.Vishnu T.C.& Sooraj Krishnan)

                                                                                                Vs

1. Manager, Ghani Motors,

       Fort Maidan, Kunnathurmedu,

       Palakkad – 678 013

2. Service Manager,

       Ghani Motors,

Opp.PVS Ford, Karingarapulli,

Kadamkode, Palakkad                                                 -           Opposite parties

             (O.Ps.1 & 2 by Adv.K.N.Sreelatha)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant is aggrieved by the constant breakdown suffered by her vehicle (Activa Motor cycle) purchased on 15/09/2018 from the 1^st opposite party. She claims that the vehicle in question suffered continuous break downs on 26/10/2018, 18/12/2018, 22/12/2018, 05/06/2019 and 07/06/2019 and the complainant had to suffer the scorching sun and thereafter financially. Eventhough the 2^nd opposite party carried out repairs, the complainant had to suffer a lot on account of the continuous breakdowns. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed seeking repayment of the cost of the vehicle along with the charges incurred for repairs and monetary compensation.
2.             Opposite parties filed version refuting the complaint pleadings stating that the vehicle in still in good riding condition and that the vehicle was brought for 4^th service after filing of the complaint before this Commission. The opposite parties had always catered to the demands of the complainant. The complaint is only liable to be dismissed.

3.         The following issues arise to be considered.

1.         Whether the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect?

2.         Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

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

4.         Reliefs, if any?

4.         Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the part of the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW1. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B5. Ext. B5 is an indecipherable document. Since a readable copy was not produced, Ext. B5 is let off and will not be considered for evidentiary purposes.

At the fag end of the case, the complainant engaged a counsel who filed an application as IA 206/2022 to reopen evidence for production of additional documents and examining witness on the part of complainant. Considering the delay in filing the application, the I.A. was allowed on costs. Since the cost was not paid, the order in I.A. stood abated.

Thereafter, when the matter was posted for hearing finally, the complainant filed another application as I.A. 563/2022 seeking to reopen the evidence again for the purpose of examining the witness for the opposite parties. This I.A. was dismissed as being belated.

            Issue No. 1

5.         Complainant’s specific pleading is that the new vehicle was in the habit of breaking down consistently. Exts. A1 to A5 are bills/tax invoices issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The sole Exhibit that comes within the time frame as alleged by the complainant is Ext. A4 series. This is an invoice dated 22/12/2018. But none of the particulars shown billed pertain to any damage or defect suffered by the vehicle. Exhibits B1 to B4 also does not show that the alleged damages were recurrent in nature. It is true that there is a noting in Ext. B1 that  “vehicle offed while in running time. Will come next week”. In Ext. B3 also there is note regarding a complaint of repeating nature. Herein also we do not feel it was a major defect as the complainant has stated, she would consult next week.  It is true that such notes would not be a conclusive proof of the conduct of the complainant, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, such notings are to be relied on.

Complainant was examined as PW1. In page 3 of the deposition, the complainant has stated that at the time of filing of complaint, the vehicle has run approximately 200 kms. On going through the documents adduced in evidence (Exts. B1 to B4), the distance covered is seen as below:

Complaint is seen filed on 01/07/2019. Therefore the vehicle is seen to have plied over 2000 kms at the time of filing. Further, service covered under Ext. B4 was carried out after filling of complainant.

    The complainant has also failed to take out an expert commissioner to prove the alleged manufacturing defect.

6.         Thus the foundational plea of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect of the vehicle fails.

            Issue No. 2

7.         Resultantly, in view of the discussion above, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there is  deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

Issue Nos. 3 & 4

8.         Having found as above, we dismiss the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 28^th  day of November, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           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 receipt bearing No.2249 dated 15/09/2018   

Ext.A2  -  Original receipt bearing No.2239 dated 15/09/2018      

Ext.A3  –  Copy of history summary sheet  

Ext.A4 (a) –  Original GST Invoice bearing No.S2802 dated 22/9/18

Ext. A4(b) – Original Labour bill bearing No.K1237 dated 22/9/18

Ext.A5  -     Original Tax Invoice bearing No.18IN05025 dated 15/9/18  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  

Ext.B1  -     Original Job Card bearing No.13933 dated 15/10/18

Ext.B2  -     Original Job Card bearing No.19663 dated 15/1/19

Ext.B3  –    Original Job Card bearing No.951  dated 16/04/19

Ext.B4  –    Original Job Card bearing No.8428 dated 17/08/19

Ext. B5 – Indecipherable copy of job card bearing No.10103

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Geetha Thankappan (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.