CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 18/01/2012
CC / 18/2012
Unnikrishnan,
S/o.Chandran,
Punjapalliyalil Veedu, Chundampatta P.O,
Kulukkaloor Via, Pattambi. - Complainant
(By Adv.C.Ramadas)
Vs
1. Manager,
Hero Honda Motors Ltd,
No.3E-23rd Floor, Saniya Plaza,
Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road, - Opposite parties
Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Kochin-682 011
( By Adv.P.Anil)
2. Manager,
Runway Motor Bikes,
Perinthalmanna Road,
Pattambi P.O, Pattambi
( By Adv.P.Anil)
3. Manager,
Adithya Auto Sales,
18/778, Yakkara, Palakkad-14
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Brief fact of the complaint is as follows:
On 29-9-2011 the complainant has taken delivery of a brand new Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.KL 52C 9517 branded as “ Hero Honda Pleasure” from the 2nd opposite party's showroom. At the time of delivery the 2nd opposite party promised one year warranty from the date of purchase for all manufacturing defects including replacement of defective parts. After taking delivery of the bike from the showroom on the very same day when the bike played for about 20 km itself, the complainant noticed oil leakage from the engine. On the same day the complainant informed the fact to the 2nd opposite party. But they have not cared to rectify the defects. At last 2nd opposite party instructed the complainant to come after 8 days as the vehicle was parked in the premises of the 2nd opposite party. When the complainant approached 2nd opposite party they given the delivery of the vehicle by stating that they have rectified the defects. After delivery of the vehicle the complainant noticed that the engine career of the bike was broken and 2nd opposite party conducted the patchwork without replacing the broken engine carrier. Because of the unfair trade practice of the opposite party, complainant compelled to register the vehicle in the very same form. After a running of 15 kms the complainant noticed the leakage again. The complainant made a complaint and garraged the vehicle for 13 days for rectifying the defects. At the time of taking delivery the Manager of the 2nd opposite party stated that they have replaced the parts and rectified the defects. But they have not replaced the part as they promised. The complainant noticed that the opposite party has applied “M seal” and “Paint” for patch work. When questioned the Manager of the 2nd opposite party insulted the complainant in front of others. The defect happened during the warranty period. So the opposite party is liable to replace it with a brand new original one. By supplying defective goods the complainant is not in a position to play the vehicle on the road and it kept idle. Stating all these facts the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 29/12/2011 for which the 2nd opposite party replied stating that this defect happened not due to their fault.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and replace the said vehicle with brand new vehicle with extended warranty or to pay the cost of the vehicle as Rs.49,900/- and cost of the litigation.
1st and 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contention. 3rd opposite party set exparte.
It is true that the complainant has purchased a motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party. But it is not correct to allege that on the date of delivery itself, when the motor bike played for about 29 kilometers, he noticed oil leakage from the engine and the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. The charges of uttering obscene words and insult by the 2nd opposite party is not correct. After having a run of about 100 km the complainant brought the vehicle to abate the leakage of oil from the engine cover. They were told by the complainant that the said leakage was due to some stones being struck on the engine, while riding. Eventhough it was not obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to replace the engine cover, they did make an offer to replace the same. On the above mentioned damage appeared to be an accidental one. In order to substitute the engine cover, permission from the Regional Transport authorities is necessary and therefore the complainant was asked to obtain the same as soon as possible. But to the utter surprise to opposite party the complainant had caused to sent a lawyer notice and reply was issued stating true facts. The application of “M seal” and “Paint” for patch work are not correct. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A9 marked on the side of the complainant. No document is produced by the opposite parties.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.1 &2
The complainant is the RC owner of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 52C 9517. The complainant has taken delivery of the said vehicle on 29/9/2011 from the 2nd opposite party's showroom manufactured by 1st opposite party. On the same day itself after a running of 20 kilometers the complainant noticed oil leakage from the engine cover. The complainant made a complaint on the same day. 2nd opposite party promised to rectify the defect. The complainant garraged the vehicle for 13 days for rectifying the defects. At the time of taking delivery the Manager of opposite party stated that they have replaced the parts and rectified the defects. When the complainant examined the vehicle he came to understand that instead of replacing the defective part the opposite party has applied “M seal” and “Paint” for patch work. According to the complainant opposite party is liable to replace the defective vehicle as the defect happened in the warranty period.
Opposite parties admit the purchasing of the above said vehicle. Opposite parties also admit that the defect is noticed during the warranty period. The version of the opposite parties is the the complainant approached the opposite party only after having a run of 100 kilometers to cure the defects of engine leak caused due to hitting of stone. But no document is produced to show that the defect was occurred due to hitting of a stone. Opposite party submit that in order to substitute the engine cover permission from the RTO is necessary and therefore complainant was asked to obtain the same. But there is no document to show that the complainant was asked to obtain permission from RTO to replace the engine cover. At the time of argument the counsel for the opposite party submitted that in the reply notice to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant dated 29/12/2011 also the opposite party expressed their willingness to replace the engine cover. But the said reply notice is not produced in the Forum.
Opposite parties admit the defect of the cover of the vehicle. The prayer of the complainant is to replace the said vehicle with a brand new one or to return the cost of the vehicle i.e Rs.49,900/-. The counsel for opposite parties submitted that the terms of warranty mandates only to replace the defective part and not the vehicle as a whole.
Anyhow the defect was noticed to a new purchased vehicle. If the opposite party has done the needful actions and informed the complainant rightly the complainant may not suffered much difficulties. It has not done by the opposite parties even though the vehicle was under their custody for about two weeks.
From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the complainant to obtain the permission from RTO to change the engine cover. Opposite parties are directed to give assistance to the complainant for getting permission from the concerned authority. On getting the permission from the concerned authority Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the engine cover and pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of May, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Certificate of registration issued by Registering authority in favour of complainant dt.01.10.2011(True copy)
Ext.A2 – Cheque receipt issued by 2nd opposite party dt.29/09/2011(True copy).
Ext. A3 – Warranty receipt issued by 2nd opposite party dt.29/09/2011(True copy).
Ext.A4- Ownership Records of 2nd opposite party(True copy).
Ext.A5 series- Lawyer notice and postal receipt issued to opposite party.
Ext.A6- Acknowledgment received 3rd opposite party.
Ext.A7- Acknowledgment received 1st opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
