KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 68/13
JUDGMENT DTD:09/12/2013
(Appeal filed against the order in C.C. No. 145/2011 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram, dt: 26.09.2012)
PRESENT
SMT.A. RADHA: MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Jithesh Babu,
S/o. K. Ganapathy,
Babu Nivas, “Kishkintha”, APPELLANT
Edavanna P.O.,
Manjeri, Malappuram
Pin-676541.
(By Adv. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal & Prathap K. Pushpakaran)
V/s.
1.M/s. Honda Motor Cycle and
Scooters India Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Sector-3,
I.M.T Manesar, Gurgaon District,
Hariyana – 122050 RESPONDENTS
2.The Manager,
A.M. Honda, Angadippuram,
Perinthalmanna,
Malappuram, Pin-679 321.
JUDGMENT
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER
This appeal is preferred by complainant against the order in C.C. No. 145/11 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram.
2. The facts of the case are that the Complainant/Appellant purchased a CB-UNICORN-CBF-150&71D-P-Black colour Motor bike from 2nd respondent, whereas the 1st respondent, is the manufacturer and 2nd respondent is the dealer of the bike. Appellant booked the motor bike on 16/03/2011 by paying an advance of Rs.1,000/- and later conlcuded the remaining payment of amount Rs. 72,163/- on 23/04/2011. The Appellant opted black colour for his bike and received a warranty for the bike from the respondents. Later within one month from the purchase the body Colour of the bike began to change from black colour to red. The appellant informed the 2nd respondent and even produced the damaged bike. The respondents did not take any steps to rectify or to solve the problem. The appellant had sent a notice to 1st respondent and still never received any relief for the same. Based on mental agony and grave deficiency appellant approached the Lower Forum for relief and prayed for a new motor bike or Rs. 75,000/- as its price with interest along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-. Respondents denied all allegations and averments except admitting the purchase of the bike. 1st respondent did not give any replacement guarantee for fading colour or bubbles in the body of the bike. Both respondents argued that complainant’s bike got these complaints due to the use of bike in rash and negligent manner and used to keep the bike under heavy sun and rain. Respondent’s defense was stating that it is a false allegation.
3. The Lower Forum concluded the order based on expert commission report that the bike had a complaint and that was to the fuel tank only, no other serious complaint noticed in the other parts of the bike or in the engine. Hence Lower Forum stated there is no chance for substitution of a new bike for the complaint bike and it requires changing its fuel tank alone. So jointly both the respondents shall liable to change the fuel tank of the bike with new original company brand within two weeks from receiving the order copy and pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
4. Though notice issued to respondents they remained absent.
5. After going through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence, impugned order under appeal, grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced, we are of the considered view that for appointment of the expert commission the bata was required to be borne by the appellant and hence the appellant deserved to have been compensated. It is also a material fact that appellant had already received the amount ordered by the Lower Forum and appellant’s bike has been repaired by the respondents based on the order.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is partly allowed. This Commission direct the respondents to pay an additional Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand rupees) as compensation to the appellant. No order as to costs.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
A.RADHA: MEMBER
nb
