Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/24/2016

J.Antony Raja Selvam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Walters Yamaha - Opp.Party(s)

Antony Jesus

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  19.01.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 26^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.24/2016

 

 

J.Antony Raja Selvan,

S/o. P.Joseph Xavier,

No.4/10, Vadakku Battai 2^nd Street,

Village Street,

Sathuma Nagar,

Tiruvottriyur, Chennai – 19.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

A-3, Ind.Area, Noida-Dadri Road,

Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh, India – 201 306.

 

2.Walters Yamaha,

Represented by its Manager,

No.740, Tiruvottiyur High Road,

New Washermanpet – Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

 

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.J.Antony Jesus, I.Jeyaseelan,

                                                                    R.Rajasekar

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                        : Ex – parte (12.07.2016)

 

Counsel for   2^nd Opposite Party              : M/s.G.Saravanan, Sujatha Saravanan &

                                                                   D.Prathap

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.16,877/- towards travel expenses and also to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony with cost of  the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 03 L 3431 from the dealer Paras  Yamaha, Mount Road, Chennai on 16.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.56,542/-. The first opposite party is the manufacturer. The first service was done on 12.09.2013. The second service was done by the 2^nd opposite party. Before 10^th service the vehicle run around 18000 kms. The complainant noticed noise coming out from engine. However the 2^nd opposite party said that the noise was coming from clutch part and not from the engine. The complainant also sought 2^nd opinion and they also said that noise is from engine.

2. The complainant entrusted the vehicle on 12.05.2015 with the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the noise. The 2^nd opposite party said that the replacement cost of the clutch would be Rs.1,600/-. Then the 2^nd opposite party said that the noise only from engine and the repairing cost would be Rs.10,000/- and it will take one week time. The complainant agreed and the same would cover under the warranty. The complainant sent several emails to repair and to deliver the vehicle. On 26.05.2015 the 2^nd opposite party replied that they had placed a special order for spares and it is expected to come within four days. After four days on 30.05.2015, the complainant sent mail, why they took 20 days to repair a bike. Finally the complainant got his bike after 25 days on  04.06.2015 by paying Rs.2,650/-.

3. During 25 days, the complainant has to do his routine work, he was forced to spend money to travel by auto rickshaw or taxi for 45 kms per day at the rate of Rs.15/- per km. Thus for 25 days the complainant has spent Rs.16,875/-. Further, due to belated repair and delivery, the complainant suffered with mental agony. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.16,877/- towards travel expenses and also to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony with cost of  the complaint.         

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

It is true that the complainant brought the vehicle for service with this opposite party on 12.05.2015, by the time the vehicle had run 24105 kms. The allegations made by the complainant that he had said that the noise was from engine and this opposite party said that noise was from clutch only and the complainant got 2^nd opinion that the engine was only fault are all false statements. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. As soon as this opposite party received the spare part, he rectified the vehicle and delivered to the complainant.

          5. This opposite party states that when the vehicle has done around 24,000 kms the question of manufacturing defect does not arise. Further the problems in the crank shaft could be due to the reason that the vehicle was not handled properly and it depends upon the riding condition also. For example if any rider switches the gear hastily. Without the clutch being engaged or with half clutch engaged, the first part to be affected inside the engine would be the crank shaft and hence the complainant cannot brand the same as a manufacturing defect.

          6. There was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and immediately after spare parts were received the vehicle was serviced and handed over to the complainant. At no stretch of imagination the complainant can say that there was inordinate delay in handing over the vehicle. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss this complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a owner of Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration no. TN 03 L3431 and purchased the same under Ex.A1, tax invoice and Ex.A2, is the R.C. book of the vehicle and Ex.A3 are the service record and Ex.A4, email communications between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and Ex.A5 demand for the service charge and Ex.A6 and A8 are the exchange of notices between them.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties are that the vehicle was repaired and delivered after 25 days and hence he suffered with mental agony and therefore he is entitled for travel charges and compensation for mental agony with costs.

          10. Admittedly the complainant left the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party for service on 12.05.2015. Though the 2^nd opposite party initially said that the vehicle will be ready in 3 days, he could not had the spare to repair it. When the complainant contacted on 26.05.2015, the 2^nd opposite party replied that special order placed for spares and expected to come in 4 days. Hence the complainant contacted on 03.06.2015, the 2^nd opposite party replied that the work is under process and he will get back the vehicle on 04.06.2015 and accordingly, the complainant also took delivery of the vehicle. The complainant’s own pleading shows that on 26.05.2015 the 2^nd opposite party said that the spare is expected in another 4 days. Hence the 2^nd opposite party should have got the spare on 30.05.2015 and thereafter repairing the vehicle in another 4 days delivered on 04.06.2015. Therefore, due to want of spare only the vehicle was unable to rectify by the 2^nd opposite party till 30.05.2015 is accepted.

11. There is no intention on the part of the 2^nd opposite party to service the vehicle with delay. As soon as he got the spare  the repaired the vehicle and delivered it to the complainant. Hence the 2^nd opposite party purposely delayed for 25 days in delivering the vehicle after repair has not been proved by the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 16.08.2013                   Tax Invoice for Purchase

Ex.A2 dated 19.08.2013                   R.C.Book

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Service Record

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Email Communications

Ex.A5 dated 04.06.2015                   Tax Invoice for Service

Ex.A6 dated 08.08.2015                   Legal Notice sent by the complainant

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Acknowledgements

Ex.A8 dated 01.09.2015                   Reply  Notice sent by the 1^st opposite party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^ND  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     The history of service for the vehicle bearing

                                                    Registration No.TNO3L3431                                             

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT