DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 09^th day of October, 2023

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V. President

              :  Smt. Vidya.A., Member

     :  Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

              Date of filing: 24/06/2022                                                             

CC/111/2022

Sneha K

Thottappura             -               Complainant

Akathethara P.O

Palalkkad

Pin 678 008

Mob: 9846836652   

(Adv. V Shanmughanandan &

Adv. Lijo Panangadan George)                         

                                                           V/s

• Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd

A-3, Industrial Area,

Noida-Dadri Road

Surjpur-201306 Distt.

Gautham Budh Nagar (U.P)

India            -        Opposite Party

• S V Motors, 3/390a,

     S&L Complex, Punnapra North

Santhanapuram P.o, kallarcode

Alappuzha - 32.

• Cheerans Auto Agencies

Cheerans Towers, Pattikkara Bye pas Road,

Below Railway Overbridge, Palakkad - 678 001

(All OPs Ex-parte)

O R D E R

Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      The Complainant purchased a vehicle by brand name Yamaha Cygnus Ray ZR on 5^th November 2021 from the 3^rd Opposite party for an amount of Rs 94,000/-. I^st Opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and 2^nd Opposite Party is their authorised service centre.

The Complainant did the service of the vehicle as per the dates mentioned in the service book. She did the 2^nd service with the 2^nd  Opposite party on 06/04/22. On May 4^th, 2022, when she tried to start the vehicle, it did not start and she contacted the 2^nd Opposite party and 2 people came and took the vehicle to the service centre. After checking the vehicle, they informed that  the vehicle’s starter generator had gone dead and they don’t have the spare parts with them. After 2 weeks, she called the Yamaha customer care and registered a complaint. Even after two months, the service centre did not repair the vehicle stating that the parts are not available.

She purchased the vehicle in order to save the fuel cost of the car. Because of the acts of the Opposite party, she suffered  mental agony and financial loss. The vehicle is having mechanical and manufacturing defects. The 2^nd Opposite Party took several months to return the vehicle after replacing the parts.  The Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in service and Unfair trade Practice by selling a vehicle having manufacturing defect.

Hence she filed this complaint for directing the Opposite Parties :- To refund an amount of Rs 98,900/- along with 12% interest from 5/11/21 till realization and to pay Rs 2 lakhs as compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the Complainant due to the Deficiency in service and Unfair trade Practice on the part of Opposite Parties and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

• After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party. Opposite  Party did not appear or file version; so they were set exparte. Complainant’s counsel filed 2 IAs IA 558/22 to implead additional opposite parties.  Notice was issued to the Opposite parties to be impleaded. Additional  Opposite Parties 2&3 appeared.  3^rd  Opposite party  filed version, but it is filed beyond statutory period and hence rejected. 2^nd Opposite party  did not file version. So Opposite Parties 2&3 were set exparte.

Complainant filed IA 559/22 for the appointment of an expert   commissioner.This IA  was dismissed as the complainant failed to file panel of experts after getting ample time.

• Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1-A3 marked. Complainant

filed notes of argument.

• Ext A1 is the Tax Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant towards the purchase price of Rs 81,887/- of the vehicle RAYZR BS G DISC BLACK

Ext A2 is the ‘Certificate of Insurance’ issued by IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company  and Ext A3 is the service record of the vehicle.

• Complainant contends that he entrusted the vehicle to the service centre, 2^nd  opposite party and after inspection, they found that the vehicle’s starter    generator had gone dead and the spare parts are not with them. They took   several months to return the vehicle after replacing the parts.  
• The Complainant alleges mechanical and manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   In order to prove her contention, complainant filed an application IA 559/22 for the appointment of an expert to inspect the vehicle and to find out the defect. But the Complainant failed to submit panel of experts even after several chances being given and the IA was dismissed.
• In the absence of any expert report stating the manufacturing defect in the     vehicle, the Complainant failed to prove her case. Exts. A1-A3 filed by the complainant are in effective to prove even a prima-facei case.
• Since the Complainant failed to prove any Deficiency in service on the part of   Opposite Parties, and manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 9^th  day of October, 2023.

    Sd/-

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                                                  President   

Sd/-

                                                                                           Vidya.A

                                                                                           Member