BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 202/2009 Filed on 10.08.2009

Dated : 16.08.2010

Complainant :

Suresh. P, Jyothi Bhavan, Kallampally Lane, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R. Narayan)

Opposite parties :

1. The Managing Director, M/s Marikar Motors Ltd., Marikar Buildings, Opp: Secretariat, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Honda Two Wheelers India, Head office & Factory, Honda Motor cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Distt.Gurgaon, Haryana-122 050.

(By adv. G.S. Kalkura)

This O.P having been heard on 29.07.2010, the Forum on 16.08.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had purchased one Honda Unicorn Bike from the 1^st opposite party. From the very first free service itself, the bike showed severe problems. Though the same was reported many times to the service in charge of Marikar, they gave no attention. Consequently complainant had given a written complaint to M/s Marikar & Honda and as per their direction, the complainant took the bike to the 1^st opposite party on 08.07.2009. As directed, after 2 days, the complainant went to the service centre to take the bike and to the surprise of the complainant, nothing regarding the complaints were done. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.

The opposite parties accepted notice issued from the Forum. Inspite of its acceptance, the opposite parties never appeared before the Forum or file their version. Hence opposite parties remain exparte.

The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7.

The issues for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) & (ii):- The purchase of one black Unicorn bike, on 09.10.2008, by the complainant is evident from Exts. P2 & P3. According to the complainant, the said vehicle became defective from the first service itself. The complainant has pleaded that though he had reported the complaint many times to the service in charge of Marikar, Pattom, the same was not attended, leaving the bike unusable. Furthermore the complainant has pleaded that he had given a complaint in writing to M/s Marikar & Honda and as per their direction the bike was given for repair at Marikar service centre, Thiruvananthapuram and that nothing regarding the complaints have been done.

The letter dated 08.07.2009 which has been marked as Ext. P1 evidences that the problems with the bike in dispute has been brought to the notice of the opposite party by the complainant. As per it the complainant has alleged reluctance in service and lack of proper maintenance. The complainant has sworn that the complaints have arisen within the warranty period. The opposite parties have not challenged the same. The warranty registration card has been marked as Ext. P4. The service record sheet Ext. P5 evidences that the vehicle has been given for timely services. But in the complaint, complainant swears that the bike had the problem of shaking of the front portion of the bike while driving at more than 40 k.m per hour and though the same was reported to the opposite parties, no attention has been given by them. The opposite parties have not denied the same, though they have accepted the notice issued from the Forum and though they were made aware of the filing of such a complaint. In the above circumstance, when there is no denial from the part of the opposite parties, the case of the complainant stands admitted and established. Hence we come to the conclusion that, the complainant could not use the vehicle defect free and the desire of a new buyer has been disappointed by the performance of the vehicle. When repeated servicing fail in resolving the problems encountered by the complainant, it evidences that the opposite parties have not properly attended to the complaints of the bike in dispute. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

From the foregoing discussions we hereby allow the complaint. The complainant is found entitled for getting his bike repaired to his satisfaction free of cost along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall rectify the defects in the bike in dispute to the full satisfaction of the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of August 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

jb BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

C.C. No. 202/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter issued by complainant dated 08.07.2009.

P2 - Copy of booking form.

P3 - Copy of delivery receipt.

P4 - Copy of Warranty Registration Card.

P5 - Copy of Service Record Sheet.

P6 - Copy of Certificate of Registration.

P7 - Copy of Driving Licence.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb