Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/431

JOHNS HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOSE GEORGE - Opp.Party(s)

AZAD BABU

26 May 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.431/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 26/05/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.236/2013 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated, 06/06/2014)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

Johns Honda,

North Jn., Chalakudy, Thrissur-680 307.

 

(By Advs:  R. Azad Babu & Balu Jayan)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

          Jose George,

Panakkal House, Pariyaram P.O.,

Thrissur-680 721.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

        Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in C.C.No.236/2013 the opposite party came up in appeal.

        2.  The case of the complainant is that on 18/02/2013 he purchased a Unicorn Honda brand two wheeler from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.77,300/-.  The very next day the battery was found leaking and the vehicle got serviced.  Thereafter, after 3 days the leaking was detected and the vehicle was brought to the agency on 22/02/2013 and it is stated that the complainant was asked to bring the vehicle on 10/03 for service.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle showed piston complaint, oil kit broke, started oil leaking and the gear was found tight.  The complainant entrusted and surrendered the vehicle with the opposite party on 10/03/2013.  The complainant demanded for a new vehicle which was turned down by the opposite party.  The complaint is filed for getting new vehicle by replacing the defective vehicle or to repay the amount of Rs.77,300/- together with compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

        3.  It is admitted in the version that the complainant purchased the Unicorn Honda Motor Bike from the opposite party.  The battery leaking was brought to the notice of the opposite party on 19/02/2013 is denied whereas it is admitted that the complainant brought the vehicle for servicing on 18/03/2013, by that time the Speedo meter showed 2796 kms. The defects pointed out by the complainant was rectified to the full satisfaction of the complainant and returned the vehicle.  The next servicing was on 10/04/2013 and pointed out the complaints of engine cover head leak and battery leak.  All these defects were rectified and servicing was done satisfactorily.  There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The complainant demanded the cost of the vehicle and mis-behaved with the opposite party.  The complainant tried to defame the opposite party through internet.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 

4.  The complainant produced Exbts. P1 to P6 and Exbts. R1 to R14 on the part of opposite parties. On considering the documents the Forum Below arrived at a conclusion that the complainant is entitled for return of cost of the vehicle.  This was challenged in appeal. 

5.  The contention raised by the appellant is that the Forum Below exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering return of the total amount spent for the purchase of the vehicle without any cogent evidence that there had any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The respondent had not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle supplied was having any manufacturing defect through any expert evidence. The defects pointed out by the complainant were the battery leaking, engine cover leak and gear tight which were rectified and provided new battery. The other defects were corrected to the satisfaction of the complainant.  During the first service ie. on 18/03/2013 the odo meter of the vehicle showed 2796 kms within a month of purchase.  The document produced by the complainant shows that he had repaired   the  vehicle  on  19/02/2013  and  nothing  is  on

 

evidence to show that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect.  From the available documents produced by both parties it is clear that there had battery leaking which was replaced by new battery.  So also the other defects were cured and informed the complainant to take the vehicle which was not responded and in the meantime the complaint is filed before the District Forum.  At this context we would like to point out that the case was disposed off without any affidavit of the complainant or oral evidence.  Merely based on the documents produced by both parties the District Forum jumped into a conclusion that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  The Consumer Protection Act envisages that the manufacturing defect is to be proved by an expert opinion under Section 13(1)(c).  In this case no expert opinion was taken to arrive at a just decision by the District Forum.  As per Exbts: P5, P6 and R4  it is  clear that the vehicle is with the opposite party.  Hence we are of the considered view that the case is to be remanded to the Forum Below for an expert evidence envisaged under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

        In the result, appeal allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.  The case is remanded to the Forum Below for fresh disposal after adducing evidence and the parties are to appear before the Forum Below on 29/06/2015.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

 A. RADHA              :               MEMBER

 

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.431/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 26/05/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.