D.o.F:9/1/13
D.O.O:23/2/15
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.5/13
Dated this, the 23rd day of February 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Subair, K, S/o Muhammed,
HNO-241/14 Ajanur,R/at Kothikkal House : Complainant
Po.Kolavayal,Ajanur.Kasaragod.
(Adv.P.Latheesh)
Manager, Pace Motors,
Adukathbail, Po.Kasaragod.. : Opposite party
(Adv. Madhavan Malankad)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of the complainant Subair is that he purchased a Honda Motor cycle bearing Rg No. KL 14 L 4095 from opposite party on 24/2/12 for an amount of Rs.74500/-. The complainant booked for a black coloured car . After 7 months of purchase the colour of the vehicle seems to be faded and it is informed to the opposite party. The complainant alleges that opposite has coated black colour on red vehicle. Complainant approached opposite party with complaint. Opposite party has assured to take necessary steps. But opposite party has not taken any steps . So a registered lawyer notice was sent on 12/12/12 . But opposite party refused the lawyer notice hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
Adv. Sri.Madhavan Malankad filed vakalath and version for opposite party denying all contentions of complainant. It is denied that the colour of the vehicle started to fade out or in beneath the paint is seen as red in colour. Opposite party delivered black coloured vehicle only. It is not red colour. Vehicle is delivered by the manufacturer direct to the dealer. Dealer is not changing its colour prior to the delivery to the customer. Allegation of coating black on genuine red is false. There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle and hence opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation or replacement of the vehicle as claimed in the complaint.
Complainant represented by his power of attorney holder filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A6 marked. The copy of the RC book is produced. Which is marked as Ext.A1. Copy of of the emission warranty card and warranty registration card are produced which are marked as A2 and A3. Registered lawyer notice sent by the complainant to opposite party on 12/12/12 is Ext.A4. But the opposite party has refused a lawyer notice and the same is produced as Ext.A5. Complainant has produced photos of the vehicle marked as Ext.A6 showing the faded black colour beneath red colour .The photos shows the registration number of the vehicle also. Except filing a version opposite party has not taken any steps to prove their case. Even after getting seven consecutive posting dates for opposite party ‘s evidence they failed neither to give any evidence nor produced any documents .
While evaluating the complaint, version, affidavit and documents it is clear that complainant booked for balck coloured vehicle which is mentioned in Ext.A2. But the colour of the vehicle faded and became red. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party has coated black color upon red coloured vehicle since the black coloured vehicles are higher price than the red coloured vehicles. Opposite party failed to prove contrary. If so it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party complainant sustained loss and mental agony. Which is to be compensated.
Hence the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.74500/- ie the cost of the vehicle with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant. On receipt of the amount the complainant is directed to return the vehicle to opposite party. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Exts:
A1- copy of the RC book
A2- copy of warranty card
A3-copy of registration card
A4-copy of lawyer notice
A5-returned envelop
A6-photos of vehicle
PW1-Rashid-PA holder of complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
/forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
