DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this 15th the November day of 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 30.04.2019 CC/132/2019
Prabhakaran.G,
S/o Gopalakrishnan,
Ambazhakkode House,
Pallassana P.O,
Pin 678 505. - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1. Manager,
Ghani Motors, Fort Maithan
Kunnathoor Medu(P.O),
Palakkad.
Pin 678 013.
2. Service Manager,
Ghani Motors,
Opposite P.V.S Fort,
N.H.47 Karinkarappulli,
Kadamkode, Palakkad.
(Opposite party 1& 2 by Adv. K.N.Sreelatha)
- Opposite parties O R D E R
Pleadings of the complainant in brief
By Sri. Krishnankutty, N.K, Member
1. The Complainant purchased a HONDA unicorn 150 CC bike from the opposite party on 22.05.2018 for a price of Rs. 86060/-. Even before the first service, leakage was observed in the front shock absorber of the vehicle which was rectified by the opposite party. Again leakage was seen before 2nd service, which was also got rectified by the opposite party. After a few days, front brake system was damaged and got it rectified by paying Rs. 353/-. At the time of 3rd service, there was oil leakage from the front shock absorber which was not corrected by paying 931/- at the service centre of the opposite party at Thathamangalam. After a few days the vehicle got starting problem while driving which he got rectified by a local mechanic.
Since this was happening repeatedly he complained to head office of the manufacturing company, M/s Honda Motors. As advised by them he took the vehicle to the service centre and got the problem rectified. When the same issue happened again, vehicle was taken to the Thathamanagalam service centre of the opposite party. They inspected the vehicle and told that the vehicle is not having problem. Since he was encountering this problem repeatedly it was affecting his work as lineman in KSEB and causing mental agony. Hence he approached this commission for getting the vehicle replaced or refund of original cost price of the vehicle Rs. 86060/-.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their common version. According to them, the motorcycle sold to the complainant is manufactured by a highly established manufacturer M/s Honda MotorCycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd and the opposite party is a leading authorized dealer of the said company. They have got experienced and appropriately trained experts who thoroughly inspected the vehicle of the complainant when it was taken to them for regular servicing or other general repairs. According to the technical team's finding the vehicle had only minor issues which were rectified then and there. At no point of time the complainant had raised the issue of manufacturing defect or replacement of vehicle as mentioned in the complainant. They have also appended the detailed service record of the vehicle from 13.06.2018 to 24.04.2019.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents on 13.08.19. Opposite party filed their chief affidavit on 08.06.22 and marked the document as Exhibit B-1. The opposite party filed an additional affidavit on 18.07.2014 which was accepted on a cost. Since the cost was not paid, these documents appended to the additional affidavit were not marked.
4. The only Document marked was exhibit B-1 from the side of the opposite party, the service history of the vehicle from 13.06.2018 to 24.04.19 which do not disclose any major defect reported by the complainant. Further as per the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party vehicle has run 3190 Kilometers during a short period from 08.06.19 to 30.06.19 which would not have been possible with a vehicle having any serious manufacturing defect.
5. The complainant has been absent continuously. Further no documents have been marked from his side to prove his allegations. Hence the complainant was taken for orders on based on merit.
6. From the details mentioned above, it can be seen that the complainant has failed in proving that the vehicle is having any serious manufacturing defect as claimed in the complaint. Further defects reported have been attended to by the opposite party as per the warranty terms.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 15th day of November, 2022.
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 the opposite parties
Ext. B1- Service history of the vehicle for the period from 13/06/2018 to
24/04/2019.
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.
