Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member
25th day of January 2023
CC 194/14 filed on 16/04/14
Complainant : Raju, KSEB Line man, S/o Narangalil Govindan,
Panur, P.O.Kuttur, Thrissur- 680 013.
(By Adv. M.A. Biju, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties :1. Kalyan Mobikes Pvt Ltd, Guruvayur Road,
Punkunnam, Thrissur. Rep by Managing Director
2. M/s Hero Motor Corp Ltd 34, Community Centre,
Basanth Lok, Vasanth Vihar, New Delhi-110 057.
(By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:
The complainant purchased a Hero Honda Passion Pro bike from the 1st opposite party manufactured by 2nd opposite party with registration No.KL 8 AR 9694 and completed all free services and 7 paid services through 1st opposite party. Since there was a defect to the side stand of the bike, he brought it before the 1st opposite party and they advised a free of cost replacement of chasis under warranty as there was a crack on it. They failed to replace it after proper demands. So he caused a notice to 2nd opposite party and the bike has a 5 years unlimited warranty as well. The defect in chasis was traced out in the 4th year of its purchase. 2nd opposite party sent a reply notice dated 03/03/14, stating that the bike was not completed its service through its authorised service centres and denied the warranty coverage. In fact, all the services were carried out through 1st opposite party and they never returned the service book after completing its service on 21/11/11. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
2) Version by Opposite parties :
Opposite parties admit the purchase of bike from them. Quality vehicles were sold to the complainant. The service of the bike was not done in time. 2 free services, 6 paid services and 2 general services were done during the 4 years. The bike ought to have completed 24 services within the period of 4 years and failure to do it amounts to negligence from the part of the complainant. There was extended warranty for the bike. To avail its benefit, all the service need to be carried out through authorised service centres. No regular service was done after 25/05/12. The service book of the bike was returned at once after all services. No defects were reported till January 2014. The bike has no manufacturing defect and so there is no deficiency in services. Hence prayed for a dismissal.
3)Points for consideration are ?
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties or not ?
b) Reliefs and costs ?
4) The complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The produced document was marked as Ext. P1 to P10. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book of KL 08 AR 9694 Hero Honda Passion Pro dated 27/02/2010; Ext.P2 is the extended warranty registration form from 1st opposite party dated 27/02/12; Ext.P3 series are the cash invoices from 1st opposite party dated 10/01/11, 10/03/11, 20/04/11, 13/08/11, 21/11/11, 10/03/12 & 25/05/12;Ext.P4 is the service bill cum cash receipt from 1st opposite party dated 11/06/11; Ext.P5 series are the spare cash bills from 1st opposite party dated 15/03/10, 9/07/10 & 09/10/10; Ext.P6 series are the Notice sent to 2nd opposite party dated 15/02/14, postal receipt & acknowledgement card; Ext.P7 is the reply notice from 2nd opposite party dated 03/03/14; Ext.P8 is the chase replacement RTO fee service charge receipt dated 28/02/17; Ext.P9 is the cash bill for the purchase of front body dated 31/12/16 and Ext.P10 is the cash invoice for the service from Indraprastha Motors dated 04/01/17. The complainant prays for Expert Report. The report is marked as Ext.C1.
5) Point 1 &2 :
The rival parties admits the purchase of bike by the complainant bearing No. KL8 AR 9694. Ext.P1 and Ext. P2 prove the same.
The dispute is heavily rest upon crack appeared on the chasis of the vehicle. It is true that the opposite party not specifically denied the existence of crack on the chasis but they plead that there is no manufacturing defect to the chasis of the bike. Opposite parties further contend that the vehicle was not properly serviced through its authorised service centre and many services were also not carried out which ought to have been done during the period. So the complainant is not entitled to benefits of extended warranty. The opposite party also admitted that the vehicle was completed four years of its life. On the other hand complainant sates that all the services were carried out through authorised service centres of 2nd opposite party.
Now the allegation confine to manufacturing defect and availing service to the vehicle. The complainant contends that all the services to the vehicle were properly carried down and to substantiate the same he relied on Ext.P3 series, Ext.P4, Ext P5 series and Ext P10. The opposite party denied the allegation and contends that the complainant failed to carry out the requisite number of services which ought to have been done during the period to fulfill the warranty condition. But no document produced to substantiate their contention.
The complainant caused to inspect the vehicle through an Expert Commissioner and he filed Ext.C1 report. Ext.C1 at point No.3 states that he noticed a heavy crack on the both sides of chasis bottom and the crack is increasing while placing the vehicle inside the stand. Point No.5 clarifies that no other abnormal defects (defects due to collusion, accident etc) noticed during the inspection. Ext.C1 finds that the crack aroused with manufacturing defect. Opposite party filed detailed counter to Ext.C1 and filed IA 242/17 to appoint a fresh expert to inspect the vehicle. The petition was allowed but the petitioner was not interested to go with the petition. Hence the petition closed. So Ext.C1 is the sole evidence which significantly clarifies the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
The opposite party defend the allegation of manufacturing defect arguing that no regular services of the vehicle were carried down by the complainant. We find no force in this argument as the manufacturing defect occurs at the time of manufacture and the failure to carry out services do nothing to it. Obviously the crack is on the chasis and same is not a mechanical device as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore we are of the view that Ext C1 can be relied on and hence, we find that the bike has manufacturing defect and thus complainant established a tenable case before this commission. The complainant further proved his mental and physical loss, agony and hardship, same need to be compensated by opposite parties.
In the result complaint allowed and the 1st opposite party is hereby directed to provide a new, proper and quality chasis of Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle. The 1st opposite party is further directed to replace the same through the 2nd opposite party pertaining to motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 8 AR 9694. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to intimate the replacement to the concerned RT office. Failing in which by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is permitted to initiate proper proceeding with RTO and the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,590/- (Rupees Ten thousand five hundred and ninety only) towards its expenses. The 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The complainant is directed to produce the bike bearing no. KL 8 AR 9694 before the 2nd opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party are directed to replace the same and return the bike within two weeks from the date of receipt of the bike from the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 25th day of January 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book of KL 08 AR 9694 Hero Honda Passion Pro
dated 27/02/2010.
Ext.P2 is the extended warranty registration form from 1st opposite party
dated 27/02/12.
Ext.P3 series are the cash invoices from 1st opposite party dated 10/01/11,
10/03/11, 20/04/11, 13/08/11, 21/11/11, 10/03/12 & 25/05/12.
Ext.P4 is the service bill cum cash receipt from 1st opposite party dated 11/06/11.
Ext.P5 series are the spare cash bills from 1st opposite party dated 15/03/10,
9/07/10 & 09/10/10.
Ext.P6 series are the Notice sent to 2nd opposite party dated 15/02/14,
postal receipt & acknowledgement card.
Ext.P7 is the reply notice from 2nd opposite party dated 03/03/14.
Ext.P8 is the chase replacement RTO fee service charge receipt dated 28/02/17.
Ext.P9 is the cash bill for the purchase of front body dated 31/12/16.
Ext.P10 is the cash invoice for the service from Indraprastha Motors
dated 04/01/17.
Ext.C1: Expert Commissioner’s Report.
Id/-
Member
