IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 18th day of May, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 65/2020 (Filed on 03-06-2020)
Petitioner : Soniya David,
Parappalliyil,
Pulickal kavala P.O.
Vazhoor, Kottayam – 686515.
Vs.
Opposite party : George Maijo Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Carackattu Building,
Manipuzha Jn. Nattakom P.O.
Kottayam – 686013.
(Adv. Bobby John K.A.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
Complainant had purchased a Ray ZR (BSIV) scooter on 20-01-2020 from the opposite party. From the second day of purchase, the vehicle was not fit for use and on intimation, the staff of the opposite party took the vehicle for repair. The starter and kicker of the vehicle was not working. Then the complainant demanded to replace such a vehicle even before registration of the vehicle. But the opposite party refused to give replacement. Again the vehicle became faulty. The service manager and staff of the opposite party took the vehicle for repair. It was informed that there is compression leak for the vehicle. The vehicle is in the custody of the opposite party for the last four months and the opposite parties are threatening through the finance agents. The act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
According to the version of the opposite party, the complainant had purchased a CYGNUS RAY ZR B628 scooter on 21-01-2010. The scooter was purchased by availing 100% financial assistance from Maxvalue Finance. When the complainant informed the battery complaint of the vehicle, the battery was changed with full warranty free of cost. The first service was done on 27-02-2020. On 14-03-2020 complainant intimated that there is starting trouble for the scooter. On inspection, compression leak was found and the scooter was removed to the service centre with the approval of the complainant. The repair of the vehicle was completed and test drive was done for 30 kilometers. The complainant was intimated on 17-03-2020 that the vehicle is ready. But the complainant did not turn up to receive the scooter. Due to Corona pandemic, the showroom was closed from 26-03-2020 to 23-05-2020. After opening the showroom, the complainant was asked to take the scooter. But they did not turn up to receive the scooter. The vehicle has no complaints. The vehicle had run 2491 kilometer as on 14-03-2020. It is revealed that even the first instalment of the vehicle loan is defaulted. This opposite party has no connection with the finance company. The opposite party is not liable for the attempts of the maxvalue finance to recover the amounts advanced by them to the complainant. The said company and the manufacturer of the scooter were necessary parties for this complaint. But the complainant omitted to add them. Hence the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.A1 and A2 and memory card as Ext.MO1.
The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked document as Ext.B1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a CYGNUS RAY ZR B628 scooter from the opposite party on 20-01-2020 for a consideration of Rs.59,771/-. There were complaints to the scooter even before the registration of the vehicle and on intimation opposite party conducted the repair works. The starter, kicker and battery of the scooter were not working properly and the complainant demanded for a replacement of the scooter. The opposite party was not ready to give a replacement of the scooter. Again the scooter became faulty and the staff of the opposite party took the vehicle to their showroom for repair works on 14-03-2020.
Ext.A1 is the tax/vehicle invoice dated 20-01-2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant with total invoice amount Rs.59,771/- Ext.A2 is the insurance certificate issued on 22-01-2020 of the scooter of the complainant. Ext.B1 is the job card with No.7408 dated 14-03-2020 for the vehicle No.KLK-05AV5380. The complaint as per the job card is compression leak and battery down.
Even though the complainant alleged manufacturing defect for the scooter, no expert opinion is obtained to establish the manufacturing defect. Moreover, the manufacturer is not made an opposite party in the case.
On the basis of the above discussion, we can see that the scooter purchased on 20-01-2020 became faulty in several occasions within a short period of two months. This shows that the scooter given to the complainant by the opposite party is a defective product as per Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The opposite party failed to provide the required repair works of the scooter to the satisfaction of the complainant. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service on their part and Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following Orders.
(1) The opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the scooter of the complainant and make it road worthy and defect free within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
(2) The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- as
compensation to the complainant with cost Rs.1,000/-.
The Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 6% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of May, 2022
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 – Tax / vehicle invoice No.K19VS 1499
A2 – Copy of insurance policy issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Job card No.7408 issued by opposite party
Court Ext.
MO1 – Memory card
By Order
Assistant Registrar
