IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 27th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 141/2019 (Filed on 27-08-2019)
Petitioner : Sijila,
W/o. Muhammad Salikh,
Kalarithara House,
Kiliroor North, Thiruvarppu
Kanjiram P.O. Kottayam
Pin - 686020
(Adv. P.K. Vinod Kumar and
Adv. Ann Mariya Joseph) Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd.
Corporate Office, 5th Floor,
AKDR Towers, Gandhi Nagar,
Thoraipakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600097
(Deleted as per IA 152/20)
(2) SG Motors,
Padachira Building,
Ananathanam Junction,
Manganam P.O.
Kottayam – 686018
Additional opposite party 3 : Managing Director,
(Implemented as per IA 152/20) Indian Yamaha Motor Pvt. ltd.
A-3, Surajpur Industrial Area,
Noida – 201306
(Adv. Sujesh K. and Adv. Chandramohan V.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act 1986
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had purchased a Yamaha Ray-ZR Two wheeler without gear from the second opposite party on 11/09/2017.The vehicle was registered in number KL.05.AQ.7980 with RTO; Kottayam. After completing 9716 Kilometers, the vehicle started showing complaints. The vehicle would stop in between the way and would not start by itself .On 28/05/2019 the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party for rectifying the defects. On 31/05/2019 the second opposite party serviced the vehicle and charged Rs.5,313/- as the service charges.
Again after the said service the vehicle became faulty on 3/06/2019 and showing the same complaints. The complainant believes that the vehicle is having
Manufacturing defects. The second opposite party charged the complainant for the services but the defects were not rectified. The act of the opposite parties is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. This complaint if filed for getting a new vehicle by replacing the defective vehicle or for refund of the bill amount along with compensation for the mental agony and hardships. On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.
The India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd appeared and filed version as follows. The first opposite party Yamaha Motor India pvt Ltd is not engaged in the business of Manufacturing, selling and distributing Two Wheeler vehicles. The India Yamaha Motor pvt ltd is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing two wheelers. The complainant purchased a Yamaha Ray ZR scooter from opposite party No.2 on 11.09.2017. The vehicle was given a warranty of two years or 24,000 KM of operation whichever is earlier. The warranty is extended to the extent of certain parts which have manufacturing defect and not to the complete scooter. The answering opposite party undertakes to repair and replace, free of cost the parts that are found to have manufacturing defects, within the period of warranty.
The first opposite party was deleted and additional third opposite party was
impleaded vide of the order in the Interlocutory Application No.152/20 filed
by the complainant. The additional third opposite party filed version contending that the relationship between the third opposite party and the second opposite party is on principal to principal basis and the third opposite party is not responsible for the acts/omissions on the part of the second opposite party. The second opposite party’s Dealership had been terminated since 2018.The complainant had never approached the third opposite party for any remedy. The complainant was riding the vehicle for two years. There is no manufacturing defect for the vehicle and the vehicle is not suffering from any defects .There is no deficiency in service on the part of third opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit marked documents Exhibits A1 to A3 and marked the expert commission report as X1.The additional third opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext B1 to B3.
The second opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the commission to defend their case. The second opposite party was set exparte.
On the basis of the complaint, Version of the additional third opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Points 1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint and version of the additional third opposite party, it is clear that there is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had purchased third opposite party manufactured Yamaha Ray –ZR scooter from the second opposite party on 11/09/2017.Ext A1 copy of the RC Book shows that the scooter was registered in No. KL.05.AQ.7980 with RTO, Kottayam. The scooter showed complaints and the vehicle was given to the second opposite party for repair work on28/05/2019 .The second opposite party had done the repair works and charged Rs.5,313/- vide Ext A3 cash receipt. After the said repair work the scooter became again defective on 3.06.2019.
Ext A2 is the Service and Warranty Manual issued by the additional third opposite party to the complainant. In Ext A2 it is stated that for getting warranty service the customer can contact the nearest authorized dealer. Yamaha will repair or replace through its authorized dealership free of charge, those parts which are found to have manufacturing defect within two years from the date of sale of the scooter or 24,000 Kilometers of its operation whichever occurs first.
Ext B1 is the Termination letter issued by the third opposite party to the second opposite party dated 2.04.2019. As per Ext B1 Termination letter the second opposite party is not a Dealer of the Third opposite party from 1st may 2019.The third opposite party had not provided the Details of the Authorized service Centre in Kottayam to the complainant for getting the services after 1st May 2019. An expert commissioner was appointed for the inspection of the scooter and the expert commissioner inspected the scooter in the presence of the complainant and representative of the third opposite party and filed X1 report. In Ext X1 report it is reported that, “if the defect of the Wiring System and Fuel system is rectified, the vehicle will be on running condition”. The expert commissioner also calculated an estimate of Rs.19812/- for the repair works including cost of spare parts and labour charges. Even though complainant alleged manufacturing defect and demanded for replacement of the scooter, the expert commissioner reported that the vehicle can be repaired. The vehicle had run 10449 KMs and became defective on 3.06.2019.Hence the vehicle was within the period of warranty. The additional third opposite party is bound to provide the repair works free of charge as provided in Ext A2 warranty and service manual. Since the additional 3rd opposite party had not adduced the details of the authorized service centre in Kottayam, the complainant is eligible to get the amount required for the repair works.
On the basis of the above findings it is clear that the third opposite party failed to provide the details of the authorized service centre in Kottayam and to provide the repair works of the scooter within the warranty period free of charge to the complainant. This act on the part of the third opposite party is deficiency in service. Point No 1 and 2 are found in favor of the complainant. We allow the
complaint and pass the following orders.
- The additional third opposite party is directed to give Rs.19,812/- to the
complainant for rectifying the defects of the scooter
- The additional third opposite party is directed to give Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.2,000/-
The order shall be complied within thirty days from the date of the copy of this order. If not complied as directed the amounts will carry 9% interest from the
date of the order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of February, 2023
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – RC book (KL-05-AQ-7980)
A2 – Yamaha Service & Warranty Hand Book
A3 – Invoice dtd.31-05-19 by SG Motors
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 - Copy of termination letter dtd.02-04-2019
B2 – Copy of agreement for dealership between 3rd opposite party and
S.G. Motors
B3 – Copy of the resolution passed by Board of Directors on 18-08-2021 by
Yamaha Motors
Court Exhibits
X1 - Inspection report by B. Ashakumar (Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector)
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
