Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/42/2016

A.Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Justin Selvakumar

17 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                  TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER

 

F.A.No.42/2016

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.27/2014, dated 29.10.2015 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvallur)

 

 WEDNESDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

                                                                                                              

A.   Radhakrishnan,

S/o. Arumugam,

No.218, New Additional Law Chamber,

High Court, Chennai – 600 104.                                                                       Appellant/Complainant

                                       

                                                                                          Vs

The Proprietor,

H.M. Motors,

No.3, Arcot Road,

Ganapathy Nagar, Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.                                                                                      Respondent/Opposite Party      

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant       :  M/s. S. Murugan, Advocate.      

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party:   M/s. M. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.        

 

          This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 03.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant and on perusing the materials on records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

 

1.         This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order, dated 29.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.27/2014 by the District Commission, Thiruvallur by dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant herein.  

2.        For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur.               

3.      The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows;-  The  complainant purchased a Motor bike by name Splendour PRO from the opposite party in the month of August 2012.  The Registration number of the said vehicle is TN-10-AH-8775.  At the time of purchase a warranty was given to the said bike for the period of two years from the date of purchase or of 3000 Kms drive whichever is earlier. As per the warranty, if any defects occurred in the vehicle during the warranty period, the opposite party has to repair the vehicle or to replace the defective parts in the vehicle.  While so, on 06.03.2014, when the appellant was riding the said two wheeler its neutral gear got stuck and as a result of which the complainant/appellant could not ride the vehicle. Hence, on 10.03.2014, the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party for repair.  After examining the bike, a mechanic from the opposite party had informed the complainant that the chain and sprocket kit have to be changed. The complainant has also informed the mechanic that the two wheeler is having warranty and hence requested him to replace the chain and sprocket kit. However, the mechanic from the opposite party compelled the complainant to pay the cost of the Chain and Sprocket kit. But, the complainant was left with no other option except to pay the cost of Chain and Sprocket kit on 17.03.2014,  totaling an amount of Rs.662.15 P and took delivery of the motor bike from the shop of the opposite party. Since the opposite party has collected an amount of Rs.662.15 to replace the chain and sprocket kit during the warranty period, there is a deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission claiming the relief of a direction to the opposite party to pay the cost of Chain & Sprocket Kit Rs.622.15 P and also to pay Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused by the deficiency in service of the opposite party.  

4.      The opposite party filed a written version resisting the complaint allegations wherein he has contended inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable on facts and is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and appropriate parties.  The owners manual of motor bike Splendor Pro, at the page Limitation of Warranty clearly states about the fact of warranty which shall not be applicable and clause (3) reads as follows;- “ To normal wear and tear components including (but not limited to) brake shoes/pads, clutch plates, drive chain and sprockets, bulbs, electrical wiring, filter, spark plug, fasteners, shims, washers, oil seals, gaskets, rubber parts, bush, rubber bellows, plastic parts breakage and wheel rim for misalignment/bend” .  At the time of service, the complainant being an advocate read over the entire clause; but to harass the opposite party this complaint has been filed.  Since the complainant’s vehicle gets stuck while riding, the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party for service on 10.03.2014. After examining the vehicle, the opposite party informed the complainant about the fault and also intimated that the chain and sprocket kit has to be replaced along with other materials that had to be replaced. The chain and sprocket kit does not fall within the warranty and the same has to be replaced only at the cost of the complainant.  Accordingly,  along with chain and sprocket kit other parts were replaced and service was also done for which the complainant paid charges accepting the clause of normal wear and tear. However, in order to get undue gain, the complainant has raised the issue relating to chain and sprockets kit and demanded huge money from the opposite party to bend for his illegal demand failing which the complainant being an Advocate is dragging the opposite party to the Court to cause undue loss and hardship. Hence, the opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.              

5.         Before the District Commission in order to prove their case, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their respective proof affidavit. On the side of the complainant, Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked and Exhibit B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.

6.        After analyzing the evidences adduced by both parties, the District Commission held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.   

7.      Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.  Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully considered the same.  It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a two wheeler in the month of August 2012 from the opposite party and the said motor bike had a warranty period of 2 years. While so, on 06.03.2014 when he was riding the said  two wheeler neutral gear had got stuck and therefore he handed over the vehicle to the opposite party to repair the same.  But, the mechanic from the opposite party’ informed the complainant that chain and sprocket kit has to be changed and also directed the complainant to pay the cost of the chain and sprocket kit. The complainant replied to him that the two wheeler was covered by warranty and therefore the above parts have to be replaced free of cost by the opposite party. Instead of the same, the mechanic of the opposite party compelled the complainant to pay the amount and hence the complainant was left with no other option except to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint. But, the defence of the opposite party is that the owner’s manual of the motor cycle at the page Limitation of Warranty, would clearly reveal that the warranty shall not be applicable to the normal wear and tear.  While so, there is no wrong on the part of the opposite party to ask the complainant to pay the cost for the same.  In view of the submissions, it would be appropriate to extract the clause (3) of the warranty which reads as follows;-

“To normal wear and tear components including (but not limited to) brake shoes/pads, clutch plates, drive chain and sprockets, blubs, electrical wiring, filter, spark plug, fasteners, shims, washers, oil seals, gaskets, rubber parts, bush, rubber bellows, plastic parts breakage and wheel rim for misalignment/bend” .  

The very reading of the above clause would clearly show that the replacement of Chain and Sprocket were not covered by the warranty. Having purchased the vehicle along with warranty conditions with open eyes, now the complainant cannot claim that he would not pay the cost of chain and sprocket kit.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The District Commission has rightly decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and subsequently dismissed the complaint in which we do not find any error or infirmity. In fact, we are of the opinion that this is one of the cases which has been filed simply to waste the precious time of this Commission.  Though the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, by taking lenient view, we refrain ourselves from imposing costs.                    

           In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C.No.27/2014, dated 29.10.2015.                 There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                    PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/November/2021