DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th  day of June,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                   Date of Filing: 3/08/2017 

     CC/114/2017

Muhammed Shihab,

S/o.Abdul Salam,

Kalamparambil House,

Nattukal Post,

Mannarkkad,  Palakkad                                                          -          Complainant

(By Adv.T.U.Shaik Abdulla)                              

                                                                                                 Vs

1. The Proprietor,

AM Wings Honda,

Surya Platinum, Ground Floor,

Opp.HP Petroleum, Nurani,

Palakkad.

2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India P.Ltd.,

Plot No.1, Sector 3(1),

MT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122050               -           Opposite Parties

(OP1 & 2 by Adv.M.Rajesh )

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant herein is aggrieved by the complaints incurred by a bike  purchased  by him from the opposite party (1).

Briefly stated, pleadings of the complainant are that he purchased a bike from first opposite party on 7/7/2014 with 5 years warranty. He was using the vehicle with utmost care. On 10/3/2016, while the motorcycle was handed over to the service centre of the first opposite party the vehicle was suffering from excessive noise.  Even after completion of service the complaint persisted.  This complaint persisted even after a number of repairs.  The first opposite party demanded payment from the complainant for repairs even while the vehicle was within the warranty period. During December 2016 it was found that the entire engine as well as brake system of the bike was in dilapidated condition while taking possession of the motorcycle from the yard of first opposite party. From then onwards, the motorcycle was kept without using it.  The complainant sought for Rs.83,000/- being the cost of the bike alongwith 18% interest and for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith other incidental reliefs. 

2. Opposite parties entered appearance. The first opposite party filed version denying the complaint pleadings. Their only case is that the complainant’s vehicle was poorly  maintained  and that the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident.   The complainant had failed to disclose this fact before the Commission. The  1^st opposite party  also undertook to carry out the repair of the vehicle free of cost if the same was having repairs as alleged by the complainant.
3. Sieved from pleadings, the following issues are considered

1. Whether, the complainant has proved that the vehicle suffers from inherent damages ?

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

3.    Reliefs, if any   ?

4.         Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1  was  marked. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. Marking of Exts.B1 to B3 were objected to by the counsel for complainant on the ground they were photostat copies.  Considering the fact that this Commission is not bound by the rules of Evidence and in the absence of a plea to the effect that the said exhibits   are forged/ fabricated, objection of the complainant is over ruled and Exts.B1 to B3 are taken on file.  Report filed by the Expert Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.

 Issue no. I  

5. The complainant’s grievance is with regard to the sound emanating from the bike as well as with regard to dilapidated engine and brake system. The opposite party No.1 had denied the entire pleadings of the complainant. Thus, in view of the rise of a consumer dispute, the complainant was burdened with the task of proving his case.

6.   In order to substantiate his case, the complainant filed an application as IA 85/2018 seeking for appointment of an Expert Commissioner. The complainant had sought for ascertainment of five matters in the said application. Pursuant to allowing of IA 85/18 Sri.Harikumar T., Motor Vehicles Inspector,  was appointed as the Expert Commissioner. He inspected the motorcycle in question and filed his report which is marked as Ext.C1. In his report the Expert Commissioner had noted that none of the matters sought to be ascertained could be ascertained  as the vehicle had been sitting dormant from 2016 onwards  for over 2 years and 8 months until the time of his visit sometime during 2019.

To the said report the complainant filed his objection stating that the Expert Commissioner failed in his endeavor as the Expert Commissioner ought to have ascertained   the defects suffered inspite of its condition. No further steps were taken by the complainant immediately to have the Expert Commissioner’s report set aside. Instead they filed another application as IA 5/2021 on 25/11/2020 seeking for appointment of another Expert Commissioner.  This Commission had by its order dated 2/11/2021 dismissed the aforesaid application, IA 5/2021.     The reason for dismissal was that the matters sought to be ascertained in IA 5/2021 was the same as the matters that were sought to be ascertained as per IA 85/2018. Resultantly, no evidence is forthcoming to discredit Ext.C1 report.

7.   Thus the complainant has failed  to prove that the motorcycle is suffering from any complaint owing to  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

Issue No.2

8.   In view of the finding in issue No.1,  the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.

Issue No.3

9.   The aforesaid finding in issue No.1 and resultant conclusion in issue No.2 not withstanding,  the undertaking held out by the first opposite party cannot be lost sight off.  In line 10 of paragraph 4 of the version, the first opposite party avers as follows:

      “The opposite parties for the sake of the reputation is ready to repair the vehicle free of cost if the same is having repairs as alleged in the complaint”.

      From a reading of Ext.A1 extended warranty registration form, it can be seen that the extended warranty commences on 7/7/2016 and runs till 6/7/2019. It can clearly be seen that the defects suffered by the vehicle occurred within the warranty period. This fact coupled with the undertaking made by the 1^st opposite party makes a good case for a direction to the 1^st opposite party to carry out repairs  of the complainant’s vehicle.

10. Hence, we direct the 1^st opposite party to carry out repairs of the complainant’s vehicle free of cost in the event the complainant produce the same before the first opposite party within 30 days of receipt of this Order. This complaint is disposed off with the above direction.

            The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or costs.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 30^th  day of June, 2022.

        Sd/-

                                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                              Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                             Sd/- 

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

 Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of extended warranty registration form dated 7/7/14

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Photocopy of form 8 B vehicle bearing No.KL50D3145

Ext.B2 – Photocopy of service bill dated 30/5/2015

Ext.B3 – Photocopy of form 8B dated 3/9/2015

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Court Exhibits

Ext.C1 – Commission report dated 25/9/2019 by Sri.Harikumar, MVI

Cost :  No costs allowed

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 will be weeded out.