IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 13th day of July, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 152/2020 (Filed on 06-10-2020)
Petitioner : Ousli Jose,
Pulikkoottil House,
Puthuppalli P.O
Kottayam – 686 011
Vs.
Opposite party : Javeens,
M.D.
Javeen Mathew,
Kumarakom Road,
Chalukunnu,
Kottayam – P.O.
(Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant had purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 motor bike from the opposite party on 29-4-2015 by paying Rs.1,40,000/- . The complainant had done all the periodical service .It is averred in the complaint that now the vehicle had
infected with rust . Due to the rust in the petrol tank, the same would be affected in the various parts of the bike. The complainant had spent Rs.5,675/- to clean the petrol tank and to remove the rust. Prior to this the complainant had filed CC 181 of 2018 before this Commission and as per the direction of this commission petrol tank of the vehicle had been replaced by the opposite party. Though the complaint was duly informed to the opposite party they were reluctant to cure the defect and informed the complainant to pay for the same saying the reason that the vehicle was out of warranty .According to the complainant the vehicle was only 5 years old and he had to spend Rs.15,000/- to replace the petrol tank with a new one. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite party to either to take back the vehicle or to replace the petrol tank and for to pay Rs.5,675/- which is the amount spent by him to replace the petrol tank along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version contending as follows:
The periodical service of the vehicle had not been carried out by the complainant as per the owner’s manual of the manufacturer.
The averment in the complaint that the vehicle had been infected by rust is not correct. It is true that the petrol tank was replaced in the year 2018. The complainant had not lodged any complaint before the opposite party regarding the alleged attack of the rust on the vehicle. The complaint is filed by the complainant with intention to get replaced the petrol tank by misleading this commission.
Though several opportunity is given to the complainant to adduce evidence in support of his case, he failed to file proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination or to adduce any oral evidence. Hence the documents produced by the complainant along with complaint is marked as exhibit A1 to A3. No oral or documentary evidence on the part of the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points?
(1 ) Whether the complainant has succeeded to prove his case and whether he is
entitled get any reliefs as prayed?.
The specific case of the complainant is that on 29-4-2015 he had purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 motor bike from the opposite party by paying Rs.1,40,000/- .It is averred in the complaint that the petrol tank of the said vehicle infected with rust and he had spent Rs.5675/- to clean the petrol tank to and get the bike as roadworthy. On perusal of exhibit A1, which is the registration certificate we can see that is the certificate of registration of the Suzuki Samurai two wheeler bearing registration no. KL -5 D -2132 which is owned by the complainant. Exhibit A2 is the estimate dated 1-10-2020 for an amount of Rs.5675/- regarding the repair works of the vehicle bearing registration no. KL-5-AL- 3844. On perusal of exhibits A2, we can see that these estimates were issued to one Shinto regarding the repair works of the vehicle bearing Registration no. KL-5-AL-3844. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove that his vehicle had been infected with the rust and he had to spend Rs.5675/- to remove the rust. More over in the complaint he did not disclose the registration number of his vehicle ie. Royal Enfield Classic 350 motor bike. Without stating the registration number in the complaint we cannot accept Exhibit A2 and A3 were issued in respect of subject matter vehicle. It is pertinent to not that the complainant did not produce any evidence to prove that subject matter vehicle is in his ownership. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of July, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC book (KL-05-D2132)
A2- Estimate bill dtd.01-10-2020
A3 – photos of vehicle
By Order
Assistant Registrar
