DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of July 2011
Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 23/01/2008
(C.C.No.13/2008)
Balakrishnan,
Ponattil House,
Koonathara (PO),
Palakkad – 679 523 - Complainant
(By Adv.Sajan Philip)
V/s
1. Versatile Energy Research
System Auto P.Ltd.
Rep.by its Managing Director,
A/803, BSEL Tech Park,
Opp.Vashi Railway Station,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 705,
Maharashtra
2. Proprietor,
Hi-Tech Motors,
T.S.R.Building,
Near SDA, Hospital,
Kanniyampuram,
Ottapalam – 679 104.
(Bipin, Bipin Bhavan,
Kanniyampuram amsom,
Ottapalam)
(By Adv.S.P.Chandran)
3. M/s.Queen Suvari,
8/1105, Coimbatore Road,
Chandranagar, Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(By.Adv.T.S.Anitha)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant purchased a value electric bike having the specification smooth (VPL 0501Z) that it does not require fuels, value bikes can run in electric current, by paying an amount of Rs.28,900/- The complainant is an aged man, supplies milk to the Koonathara Ksheerolpadaka Sangam and after supplying the milk, opens his grocery shop at Koonathara. Complainant started using the vehicle. On charging the battery as directed, the vehicle could not run even 10 km. Complainant could not even use the vehicle for the morning journey of 8km. During the journey the vehicle will stop functioning and the complainant had to push the vehicle through the road to the destiny. Within a week of purchase complainant suffered a loss due to the non functioning of the bike. Complainant took the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party and informed the complaint. The performance of the vehicle was too low than what was guaranteed. The 2nd opposite party tried to make good the defect but that was turned in vain. Supplying defective good is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Even now vehicle stands in the custody of 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.28,900/- as the price of the vehicle alongwith 18% interest per annum till realization and pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings of the complainant and pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party 2 & 3 filed version stating the following contentions. The 2nd opposite party stated that they sold a smooth value bike to the complainant which was fully serviceable and was without any manufacturing defect. The complainant was fully satisfied with the functions of the value bike and then only took delivery. The complainant has used the bike without any complaint for nearly three months. Later on the bike started giving troubles due to poor maintenance and flagrant violation of the terms and conditions and directions for use. The complainant has not done the periodical services of the vehicle in time at authorized service stations. The complainant has also repaired the bike at local untrained workshops. Whenever the complainant approached for service the 2nd opposite party has rendered service to the satisfaction of complainant. On 13/12/2007, while the smooth value bike was under repair at service station, the complainant and his friends came to the show room of 2nd opposite party and quarreled with the salesman and forcibly took away another brand new mood value bike. The matter was informed to Ottappalam Police station and the complainant returned the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party at Police Station. The mood vehicle was in a damaged condition. The 2nd opposite party had spent an amount of Rs.5,000/- for repairing the bike. The smooth value bike, which was under repair at service station was ready for delivery after servicing on 14/12/2007. The matter was informed to the complainant on 14/12/2007 itself. The complainant has not so far collected the smooth bike from the 2nd opposite party till date. The safe custody of the bike till date costed Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd opposite party and complainant is liable to compensate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. If the Hon'ble Forum finds any manufacturing defects in the vehicle the 1st opposite party may be directed to compensate the complainant. Hence the 2nd opposite party prayed that contentions may be accepted and appropriate orders may be passed.
3rd Opposite party denied that they are main dealer of the company. Therefore 3rd opposite party has not jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party. Hence 3rd opposite party prayed that complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Notice to 1st opposite party served. 1st opposite party absent. Hence name called and set exparte.
Complainant and 2nd opposite party filed chief affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to Ext.B5 marked on the side of 2nd opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issues I & II
We perused the oral testimony of complainant and available records. Admittedly the complainant had purchased a value electric bike from the 2nd opposite party. In Ext.A1 the mileage of the vehicle is 50 – 60 kms. In Ext.A2 the Range / Mileage of smooth value bike is 50km and maximum speed below 25 km /hr. The 2nd opposite party admitted that the complainant started using the vehicle for 3 months and handed over to them for repair. The 2nd opposite party stated that they had send a registered lawyer notice on 21st January 2008 to the complainant stating that the two wheeler is ready for delivery and should be collected within 7 days of receiving notice. The complainant, even after receiving notice did not collect the bike but send a reply notice alleging deficiency in service and manufacturing defect. In Ext.B5 the second opposite party given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Ottapalam to the complainant alongwith his son trespassed into the show room and the mood electric two wheeler taken away. The 2nd opposite party stated that due to the intervention of police the bike was returned. No evidence was produced by the 2nd opposite party to prove that the bike was returned to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party was not present for cross examination. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer set exparte. The 2nd opposite party is the Sub dealer. As per the contention in the version of 2nd opposite party the main dealer 3rd opposite party was impleaded. The power of attorney holder of 2nd opposite party filed the affidavit and documents. On 28/12/2010 the complainant filed application to cross examination of 2nd opposite party and application allowed. 22/1/2011 posted for the cross examination of 2nd opposite party. But 2nd opposite party not present for cross examination. Thereafter the case was posted for hearing. Then the 2nd opposite party filed IA 153/11 to re-opening the evidence and to receive the documents. IA was allowed. The 2nd opposite party stated that the complainant has repaired the bike at local untrained workshops. No evidence was produced by the 2nd opposite party to prove that the bike repaired at local untrained workshops. The complainant was cross examined. The complainant disposed that h n car porchemWv park sNbvXncp¶Xv. CXn\v ap¼v cycle BWv D]tbmKn¨ncp¶Xv bike BZyambn D]tbmKn¡pIbmWv. cmhnse ]m Id¶v societybn sIm pt]mbn sImSp¡pw 2 ¼ km D mhpw Then the complainant used the vehicle to supplying the milk daily. In Ext.A1 & A2 the opposite parties given the specifications features and particulars of value bikes. The complainant has attracted the offerings of the opposite parties and decided to purchase the bike. Thereafter the complainant could not use the vehicle for the morning journey of 8 km. Now the vehicle was in the custody of 2nd opposite party. In Ext.C1 commission report, the commissioner inspected the vehicle at Kanniyampuram and filed the report. The commissioner stated that with full load the vehicle may not travel as per specification / statements in brochure, a distance of 50km per charge of battery. The recommendations by the commissioner that on inspection the electric bike is not capable of traveling 50km with 150 kg load on rural Kerala road conditions, so Sri.Balakrishnan may be provided with adequate compensation at the earliest. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties has not filed any objection to the Commission Report. Later the second Opposite Party filed objection to Commission Report without receiving the petition. The opposite parties have not produced any contradictory evidence to the Commission Report. The Commissioner was not examined. The Commissioner stated that when the vehicle travel on upward gradient and on rural mud road or stone road the motor will not be damaged only the tires and tubes will get damaged. In C1, expert commissioner stated that when the vehicle is traveling on rural roads in Kerala State with full loads there may be a short of performance as stated in the brochure. In Ext.A1 & A2 the opposite parties not mentioned the road conditions. The complainant could not changed the road conditions in Kerala. The complainant is a senior citizen and used the vehicle for supplying the milk. Going through the available records we considered that the complainant given the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party after 3 months from the date of purchase. In Ext.B2 the service card of the vehicle produced by the 2nd opposite party.
In the above discussions we are of the view that the vehicle of the complainant has defects. There is deficiency in service on the part of all opposite parties. In the result the complaint is allowed. In Ext.A3 the complainant has purchased the smooth value electric bike for an amount of Rs.28,900/- on 8/9/2007. A depreciation amount of 25% of the cost of vehicle deducted from Rs.28,900/- (i.e.28,900 – 7,225 = 21,675/-) Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.21,675/ - as the price of the vehicle.
We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.21,675/ - (Rupees Twenty one thousand six hundred and seventy five only) as the price of the vehicle and pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant 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. On receipt of the decree amount the Opposite parties shall taken back the vehicle.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of July 2011.
Sd/- Smt. Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Advertisement notice of opposite party
Ext.A2 – Specification of the value bikes
Ext.A3 series - Tax Invoice No.01 dtd.8/9/07 of Hi-Tech Motors alongwith
insurance receipt.
Ext.A4 – Owner's Manual
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Advertisement notice
Ext.B2 – After sale service card
Ext.B3 – Specification of the value bikes
Ext.B4 – Photocopy of registered lawyer notice dtd.21/1/08 sent to complainant by 2nd Opposite party
Ext.B5 – Photocopy of complaint letter dt.13/12/07 address to SI of Police, Ottapalam by the 2nd Opposite party
Complainant cross examined
PW1 - Balakrishnan
Commission Report
C1 – Commissioner Report
Cost Allowed
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
CC.No.13/2008
Balakrishnan,
Ponattil House,
Koonathara.P.O,
Palakkad – 679523. - Complainant
(By Adv.Manoj P.Menon & Sajan Philip)
Vs
1. Versatile Energy Research System Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director,
A/803, BSEL Tech Park,
Opp. Vashi Railway Station,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705,
Maharashtra.
2. The Proprietor,
Hi Tech Motors,
T.S.R.Building,
Near SDA, Hospital,
Kanniyampuram,
Ottapalam 679 104.
Bipin, Bipin Bhavan,
Kanniyampuram, Ottapalam.
(By Adv.S.P.Chandran)
3. M/s.Queens Suvari,
8/1105, Coimbatore Road,
Chandranagar, Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.T.S.Anitha)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Complainant and 3rd opposite party represented. Complainant affidavit not filed. Three postings already given for filing affidavit. It seems complainant is not interested in proceeding with the case. Hence dismissed for default.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of August, 2010
Sd/- Seena.H,
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
Date of filing: 25/01/2008
