IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 14thday of March, 2023.
Filed on 30.08.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.219/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Hariprasad.N 1. M/s Honda Motorcycle& Scooter
Saradalayam India Pvt.Ltd.
ThekkeAattupuram Gurgaon, Haryana-122050
Pazhaveedu P.O.
Alappuzha-688009 2. M/s ShymasAutosales
(Party in person) Sanathanapuram P.O.
Alappuzha
Rep.by its Manager
(Adv.K.T.Anish Mon for OPs)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 25.11.2020 complainant purchased one Active 6 G scooter for Rs.88,250/- from the 2nd opposite party. During July 2022 it was noticed that rusting occurs in the front side wheel. The matter was informed to 2nd opposite party and the vehicle was produced. However after taking photographs they informed that they will intimate further proceedings. So far there is no response for the complaint. On 28.07.2022 a complaint was filed to the 1stopposite party who is the manufacturer by email. Since there was no reply again another email was sent on 2nd August 2022. On 3rd August a reply was received stating that the complaint is registered.There is no response for the complaints made to the opposite parties. This amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is filed for replacing the front wheel and for getting an amount of Rs.3,000/- for expenses.
2. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. On 25.11.2020 complainant purchased a vehicle from the 2nd opposite party. The 1st service was conducted on 20.12.2020 and 2nd service was conducted on 21.06.2021. During these occasions there was no complaint regarding rusting. At the time when the vehicle was produced with complaint of rusting it was informed that they will do necessary painting. However complainant was not amenable for the same and he wanted to change the part. Since the warranty is only for a period of one year repairs cannot be done under warranty and it was informed to the complainant. This complaint is filed on an experimental basis only to harass the opposite parties.
3. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The complaint was duly registered and reply was given. Rusting occurred due to lack of maintenance of the vehicle. Since the warranty of one year has expired, complainant is not entitled for any repair under warranty. However 2nd opposite party hadagreed to remove the rust for paying the same. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle repaired after the expiry of warranty?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to change the part which became rusty as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realise compensation?
- Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1& PW2 and Ext.A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant. Ext.C1 commission report was marked through PW2. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
6. Point Nos.1 to 4
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked A1 to A4.
7. PW2 was working as AMVI at Alappuzha. On 27.12.2022 after giving notice to both sides he inspected vehicle No.KL 04 AQ 7691 Honda scooter and prepared a report. It is marked as Ext.C1. On examination rust was found on both the wheels. It was a manufacturing defect of the wheel disc. Due to defect in the front wheel it was not possible to ride the vehicle, it was necessary to change the front wheel and the quality of the material was poor.
8. As per Ext.A1 tax invoice dtd.25/11/2020 PW1, the complainant purchased an activa scooter from the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 70,302/-. It was manufactured by the 1st opposite party M/s Honda scooters and motor cycle pvt ltd. It was having a warranty of one year. Now the case of PW1 is that after running about 6000 kms it was noticed that during July 2022 the front wheel is becoming rusty. He produced the vehicle before the 2nd opposite party and after inspecting the same they informed that they will take necessary action. However inspite of passage of time the complaint was not redressed and hence this complaint is filed for getting an order to replace the front wheel rim and seeking an amount of Rs. 3000/- as court expenses. Opposite parties filed a joint version admitting that the vehicle was purchased on 25/11/2020. It was produced for service on 20/12/2020 and 21/6/2021 and there was no complaint of any nature. The vehicle is having a warranty only for one year. After the warranty period it was produced before the 2nd opposite party with a complaint of rusting on the front wheel. Since it could not be replaced under warranty, they informed complainant that it can be rectified by painting. However he was not satisfied and thereafter the complaint is filed. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4. As per the request of the complainant anAMVI was deputed to inspect the vehicle. Accordingly on 27/12/2022 he inspected the vehicle and prepared Ext.C1 report. As per Ext.C1 report rusting was found on both the wheels. According to PW2 AMVI, it was manufacturing defect. Relying upon the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with Ext.C1 report complainant who was appearingperson pointed out that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and he is entitled to get wheel exchanged.
9. Admittedly as per Ext.A1 tax invoice the vehicle was purchased on 25/11/2020 and it is having a warranty of one year. Ext.A2, A3 and A4 are the email communications between PW1 and the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the 1st message which is dtd. 28/7/2022. Since the vehicle was purchased on 25/11/2020 and so that the complaint arose on 28/7/2022 as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties it cannot be replaced under warranty. During cross examination PW1 admitted that rusting occurred after 1 ½ years of purchase. PW1 is relying upon the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with Ext.C1 report. In Ext.C1 report it is stated that the front wheel rim of the vehicle is rusted and stuck. The scooter cannot be driven since the wheel was stuck. There was no rusting on other parts of the vehicle. Though PW2 stated that it may be due to manufacturing defect, from Ext.C1 report it is seen that there was no rusting on other parts of the vehicle. Hence it can be due to lack of maintenance and misuse. During cross examination PW2 stated that report was prepared on his assumption. Since the warranty period of one year is over no order can be passed against the opposite parties to repair the vehicle under warranty. From Ext. C1 report it is seen that due to rusting the front wheel is stuck and the vehicle could not be driven. PW1 purchased the vehicle as per Ext.A1 bill on 25/11/2020 for Rs. 70,302/-. From Ext.C1 report it is seen that the odometer reading showed 7359 kms. Since no order can be passed to repair the vehicle under warranty,opposite parties can be directed to repair the vehicle and make it running condition. As suggested in the version the rust can be removed and painting can be done. Since the warranty period is over only an order of repair can be made against the opposite parties and no order can be passed to replace the same. PW1 is not entitled for any compensation since in the version it is stated that when the vehicle was produced 2nd opposite party was ready to repaint the same. Hence no amount can be ordered as compensation. These points are found accordingly.
10. Point No.5
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
a) Opposite parties are directed to repair the vehicle and make it running condition. Since the warranty period is over, opposite parties are allowed to collect necessary charges for the repairs.
b) Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 14th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Hariprasad N(Complainant)
PW2 - Sri.Shibukumar M.R (Commissioner)
Ext.A1 - Tax invoice dtd.25.11.2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of E-mail dtd.30.08.2022
Ext.A3 - Copy of E-mail dtd.30.08.2022
Ext.A4 - Copy of E-mail dtd.30.08.2022
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties: NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
