Ameer Deb, S/O-Jogendra Deb, aged baout 32 years filed a consumer case on 25 Nov 2019 against The Proprietor, UNITECH, Motors in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/17/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Nov 2019.
BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
C.C.NO. 11/2018
Present- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.
Ameer Deb, aged about 32 years,
S/O- Jogendra Deb,
At/P.O-Baniakilinda,
P.S/Dist-Deogarh. …. Complainant
Vrs.
UNITECH MOTORS, Rajamunda,
P.O/P.s/Dist-Deogarh.
Authorised Service Station,
YAMAHA Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
A-3 Industrial Area, Noida-Dadri Road,
Dist-Goutam Budh Nagar(U.P),India….Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Nemo.
For Opp. Party-1 Nemo.
For Opp. Party-2 None.
DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2019, DATE OF ORDER : 25.11.2019
Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President- Brief fact of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one new Yamaha Alpha Scooty having Chassis No-ME1SED116H0004791 and Engine No-E3Y3E0136218 from the O.P-1. The on road price of the Scooty was Rs.71,446/- and the Complainant has paid Rs 30,000/- as down payment to the O.P-1 where the registration fees, Insurance charges and accessories are included. The O.P-1 at the time of purchase assured to provide the registration and insurance copy within fifteen days from the date of purchase. But in spite of several visits the O.P-1 did not handed over the same for which the Complainant is facing a lot of problems for want of relevant documents. Again on dtd 12.01.2018, the Complainant found that the foot rest of the Scooty was broken which he claims to be a manufacturing defect and requested the O.P-1 to replace it. Thereafter he faced some engine problems in the Scooty as it was not started at all in spite of several attempts. As the Scooty is within warranty period the Complainant requested the O.P-1 to replace the same but the O.P-1 always ignored the Complainant and the problems remained unsolved. The O.P-1 has not provided prize coupon to the Complainant at the time of purchase of the Scooty, given to the customers as a offer. In spite of having warranty the O.P-1 neglected the Complainant and harassed him various ways. But according to the O.P-1 the Complaint petition is false, fabricated and frivolous hence deserves to be dismissed. He has already provided the Registration certificate, Smart Card to the Complainant since long. The foot rest of the Scooty has been broken due to lack of proper maintenance and rough driving by the Complainant hence the warranty will not be covered for mishandling of the same. If there is any manufacturing defect, it is the duty of the O.P-2 to cover warranty as per the norms. Being a dealer his duty is to sell the vehicle and provide after sale services to customers. He has helped the Complainant by providing the address and phone number of the O.P-2 for which he can make contact with him. The starting problem was solved by the tuning adjustments and there are no engine problems or any other manufacturing defects in the Scooty. As the Complainant has not completed certain paper works, he is not eligible to avail any prize coupon. The Complainant is not paying the EMI to the financier, for which the financier warned to seize and repossess the Scooty .Hence the Complainant in fear of seizure, left the Scooty with Financier in advance, in apprehension of loss of prestige, if the financier seizes the Scooty in presence of public.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
From the above discussion and material available on the records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as he has purchased a Scooty from the O.Ps. It is seen that initially though the O.P-1 has not provided the R.C Particular, Smart Card etc. to the Complainant due to some unavoidable delay in official procedure at R.T.O, Deogarh but at later stage the O.P-1 has handed over the same to the Complainant and it is confirmed by the Complainant. It is held that there developed starting problems and breakage of foot rest during the course of riding the Scooty and it suffered from some minor defects, which, however, were attended to by the O.P-1 time to time. But the direction for replacement of the Scooty would not be justified. On a sale of a motor vehicle by a manufacturer to dealer there may be an implied warranty that it is reasonably fit for, or adapted to, the uses for which it is made and sold; and such a warranty is not excluded by the silence of the contract of sale as to warranties." Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for. This matter has been properly established in the case of Jose Philip Mampillil vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Anr. on 27 January, 2004 decided by Supreme Court of India.
ORDER.
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed that on taking the said Scooty in question to the authorized service centre of the O.P-1 within one month, the defective part that is the footrest assembly shall be replaced. The Complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for the replacement. No cost as to Compensation etc. is to be paid by the O.Ps.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 25thday of November, 2019 under my hand and seal of this forum.
I agree, I agree,
MEMBER(W). MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.