O R D E R
By Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Member :
Factual Matrix :
Complainant has purchased a brand new Yamaha F.Z. two wheeler from the opposite parties on 04/07/2014. Vehicular details are as Follows :
Reg. No. - KL 08BD3621, Engine No. - 21CK012689,
Chasis No. 121COK5E2012748, Price Rs.82,050/-.
It was assured that this is a quality bike and the service provider is also excellent. As against those assurances it was found that the bike is having manufacturing defects. Five services were done. It is alleged that the bike was exhibiting fresh complaints each and every time before and after the service. Complaints were many such as jerking on the front wheel. Mileage is shockingly below 30 k.m./ liter against the assured 50 k.m./liter. The bike is getting off while raising and running. There was fuel leak and the front disc exhibiting friction and not getting started by self-motor etc.
2) As stated by the complainant, he had approached the opposite parties several times even by mails on different dates but of no avail. Opposite parties miserably failed to provide the required service. Aggrieved by the above, a registered lawyer notice was sent to the 1st & 2nd opposite parties on 20/07/2015 requesting to replace the vehicle and or to pay back the cash price. But the 2nd opposite party replied to his lawyer’s notice that they had replaced already front fork assembly cone set, chain and sprocket on 19/03/2015. Complainant alleges that those replacements itself is an admission of mechanical as well as manufacturing defects. Usually the said parts are expected to run at least for the warranty period. Opposite parties are liable to the complainant for their deficiency in service. It is prayed that the complaint may be allowed by ordering replacement or making a payment of Rs.82,050/- with 12% interest and also to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and other hardships due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Rs.25,000/- towards costs as well.
3) Admitted the case. Issued notice to the opposite parties. They appeared through counsels. As stated by the 1st opposite party complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Most of the allegations are false, frivolous and vexatious. The vehicle has no manufacturing defects. It is true that replacement of front fork assembly cone set, chain and sprocket was done. Repeatedly the complainant was visiting the workshop with some request for replacing the other parts. Which was not allowed. Complainant thus got angry and hence filed this complaint for unjust enrichment with a fraudulent and dishonest intention. There is no cause of action and there is no deficiency in service also. Complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4) Then the case posted for evidence . The points for consideration are the following.
a) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties ?
b) If yes, what are the releifs and costs.
5) Complainant appeared before the Commission and filed proof affidavit along with 14 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P14. Ext. P1 is the Invoice dtd. 04/07/14; Ext. P2 is the attested true copy of Certificate of Registration; Ext. P3 is the copy of application form for booking Yamaha Motor Cycle dtd. 03/07/14; Ext. P4 is the copy of Service Record; Ext. P5 is the print out of Mail 13/03/15; Ext. P6 is the print out of email dtd. 20/03/15; Ext. P7 is the print out of email dtd.18/03/15; Ext. P8 is the print out of email dtd. 28/04/15; Ext. P9 is the print out of email dtd. 15/04/15; Ext. P10 is the print out of email dtd. 07/05/15; Ext. P11 is the copy of lawyer notice issued to 1st & 2nd opposite parties dtd. 20/07/15; Ext. P12 is the Postal Receipt; Ext. P13 is the Postal A/D card and Ext. P14 is the Reply notice send by the 2nd opposite party dtd.11/08/15. An Expert Commissioner was also appointed. His report is marked as Ext. C1. From the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit and 12 documents were produced and those documents were marked as Exts. R1 to R12. Ext. R1 is the copy of Board Resolution dtd.17/02/12; Ext. R2 is the copy of Warranty Card; Ext. R3 is the copy of Customer Satisfaction note; Ext. R4 is the copy of Job card No. 8388 dtd.26/03/2015; Ext. R5 is the copy of Internal Office Memo; Ext. R6 is the Job Card dtd. 29/11/14; Ext. R7 is the copy of 3S customer Satisfaction dtd. 19/03/15; Ext. R8 is the copy Internal Office Memo dtd. 20/04/15; Ext. R9 is the Job Card dtd. 26/03/15; Ext. R10 is the Job Card dtd. 05/02/15; Ext. R11 is the Inspection Report dtd. 20/01/2016; Ext. R12 is the Authorisation letter of 2nd opposite party dtd. 27/01/17.
6) While examining the Expert Commission Report this Commission has come to a conclusion that there are only minor defects. Neither the Expert Commission Report nor the documents submitted by the parties show any defects that can be termed as Manufacturing Defects. However there are problems due to some mechanical defects. As reported some shock was noticed from the front fork cone set assembly (bearing race assembly) the frequent damage to the item indicates that bearing used is of poor quality. Some amount of oil leak was observed from the front shock absorber through oil seal. And some sound was observed from power transmitting chain due to slackness. The vehicle had already covered 22,000 kms and its service reports show that regular service were carried out. Out of 7 services 6 service were carried out. As admitted by the opposite parties some parts were already replaced. In the circumstance there are grievances which are not fully redressed by the opposite parties and are being genuine opposite parties are responsible to find out the solution. Since the problems are continue to be unredressed, all the opposite parties are liable which is due to the deficiency in service.
We are thus convinced and give a right verdict in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties have also shown readiness to cure the defect if any.
Relief and cost :
In the above circumstances, this Commission is inclined to allow the complaint and direct all the opposite parties to ensure that the vehicle in dispute is thoroughly examined and repaired replacing parts wherever required to the reasonable satisfaction and expectation of the complainant and also allow Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 16th day of November 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Invoice dtd. 04/07/14
Ext. P2 attested true copy of Certificate of Registration
Ext. P3 copy of application form for booking Yamaha Motor Cycle
dtd. 03/07/14
Ext. P4 copy of Service Record
Ext. P5 print out of Mail 13/03/15
Ext. P6 print out of email dtd. 20/03/15
Ext. P7 print out of email dtd.18/03/15
Ext. P8 print out of email dtd. 28/04/15
Ext. P9 print out of email dtd. 15/04/15
Ext. P10 print out of email dtd. 07/05/15
Ext. P11 copy of lawyer notice issued to 1st & 2nd opposite parties dtd. 20/07/15 Ext. P12 Postal Receipt
Ext. P13 Postal A/D card
Ext. P14 Reply notice send by the 2nd opposite party dtd.11/08/15.
Ext.C1 Expert Commissioner Report
Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :
Ext. R1 copy of Board Resolution dtd.17/02/12
Ext. R2 copy of Warranty Card
Ext. R3 copy of Customer Satisfaction note
Ext. R4 copy of Job card No. 8388 dtd.26/03/2015
Ext. R5 copy of Internal Office Memo
Ext. R6 Job Card dtd. 29/11/14
Ext. R7 copy of 3S customer Satisfaction dtd. 19/03/15
Ext. R8 copy Internal Office Memo dtd. 20/04/15
Ext. R9 Job Card dtd. 26/03/15
Ext. R10 Job Card dtd. 05/02/15
Ext. R11 Inspection Report dtd. 20/01/2016
Ext. R12 Authorisation letter of 2nd opposite party dtd. 27/01/17.
Id/-
Member
