D.O.F:23/03/2019
D.O.O:30/10/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.61/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Shivaprasad.P, aged 36 years
S/o Ganapathi Bhat
Pulithadi House : Complainant
Bellur Village and Post
Kasaragod Taluk and Dist.
(Adv: Vijayan Kodoth & Sathyshankar.M)
And
1. The Manager,
Pace Motors, Adkathbail,
Kasaragod Post
Kasaragod Taluk and Dist. : Opposite Parties
2. The Manager/ The authorized Signatory,
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd,
Commercial Complex – II, Sector 49-50,
Golf Course Exyension Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint by the complainant are that the complainant purchased Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle on 08/09/2017 by paying Rs. 90684/-. Vehicle is subject to finance to KDC bank Mulleria.
During Journey he noticed engine suddenly turning in to off vibration, and THEREFORE took for service returned after service. Again problem continued after running 6800 Kilometers with other minor defects. As per complaint defects noted are manufacturing defects. He suffered mental tension, agony and spent Rs. 25,000/- for transport charges to carry the vehicle to Opposite Party showroom. Complainant claim return Rs.25,000/- and 50,000/- as compensation and to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle and cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party No:1 filed its written version, Opposite Party No:2 filed memo adopting the version of Opposite Party No:1. Opposite Party admitted that complainant purchased the vehicle denied said bike suffer from several defects such as the engine off suddenly while running vibration at its 40-45 KM/hour speed and engine in poor condition. Opposite Party No: 1 admitted that complainant brought the vehicle to the Opposite Party for the first service on 04/10/2017 Opposite Party finished the service and repair work of the vehicle taking very care, and correctly that time meter shows 840 Kilometers. And also all free service done to the satisfaction of the complainant. Opposite Party denied that just changed the engine oil and again on 3400 kilometers the same defect was occurred at Mulleria and complainant again taken the vehicle to the show room at Kasaragod. Opposite Party No: 1 informed the complainant the said defects are manufacturing defect or that the same happen only one bike in 50 bikes. The averments in the complaint that vehicle has some missing problem, starting trouble while running kilometers is 14660 not time. The Opposite Party technician checked the vehicle thoroughly and found satisfactory. HMSL (Honda Motor Cycle and scooter India Ltd) it is instructed only use normal petrol in Honda 2 wheelers. Opposite Party cleaned the fuel tank, fuel lines and car bona. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the act of Opposite Party. Opposite Party is not liable to pay any reliefs in the complainant. And prayed for dismiss of the complaint.
Complainant filed proof affidavit. He was cross examined as Pw1, Ext A1 to A8 documents marked from his side. Ext A1 is copy of R.C, Ext A2 is Tax invoice, Ext A3 to A9 are the copy of E-mail messenger. Complainant filed IA 199/2019 to direct Opposite Party No:1 to produce job cards. As per the direction Opposite Party No:1 produced job cards . And marked as X1 series.
Considering the nature of dispute conditions raised by the parties. Following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is any manufacturing to the vehicle as claimed by complainant or its re-placement.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service as unfair trade practice from Opposite Parties.
- Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation? If so for what reliefs?
Issue No:1
Relates to manufacturing defects and claim for replacement of vehicle. Fact remains that no steps required as per mandate of law is taken to inspect the vehicle by an expert mechanical engineer or such other proof is available to show that vehicle suffer any manufacturing defect . further evidence of Pw1 shows that he is using the vehicle till date. He admits suggestion expert opinion if obtained it will prove no manufacturing defect and no reason why steps are not taken. He admits whenever vehicle is taken for repairs and he recorded his satisfaction of vehicle service. So considering the evidence on record, claims made, this commission finds and holds that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect and prayer for its replacement is rejected. Responsibility of the dealer under warranty was only to repair or replace any part found to be defective and if necessary repairs and replacement of components are carried out free of charge during the period of warranty it does not constitute deficiency in service. The allegations of manufacturing defect made by the complainant is not acceptable. It is pertinent that the vehicle of the complainant had covered a distance of 20244Kms as on 10/01/2019 if the vehicle had been suffering from manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant, the vehicle would not have covered such a long distance in such a short time. Expert opinion is necessary in this case. Complainant has not taken any steps to obtain expert opinion.
Complainant deposed that the defects were cured whenever the complainant approached the dealer during the warranty period. The inspection report also did not show any evidence that there is manufacturing defects and needs no re-placement of the instant vehicle.
Regarding deficiency in service Pw1 admits he is satisfied with the service of Opposite Party No:1. He also admitted the genuine of periodical service/job card produced by Opposite Party No:1. Have in truth there is no specific complaint for a particular item of spare parts or work and there is no deficiency in service since complainant expressed his approval of service of vehicle. He claims Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation charges, its details, amount spent other particulars including date of travel etc is not furnished. Considering that the vehicle is brought to the dealer several times for service, complainant has incurred its expenses. The commission is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards the expenses incurred by complainant is found reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case payable by Opposite Party No:1 and liable to get cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing to Opposite Party No:1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant to the complainant towards the cost expenses incurred by him and also pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the cost of the litigation with 30 days from the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C
A2- Tax invoice
A3 to A8-copy of E- mail messages
X1- series job cards
Witness Examined
Pw1- Shiva Prasad.P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
