D.O.F:16/01/2019
D.O.O:30/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.11/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Dainabi.K.A
W/o. Basheer
R/at Irathil house :Complainant
Bandadukka, Chengala via
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
And
Manager
South west Motor Corporation Pvt Ltd
Opposite Govt. Vocational Higher Secondary School Road
Kanhangad South :Opposite party
(Adv: K.A.Lalan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The facts of the case is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Bullet motor cycle for his brother Mohamed Ali who is running a business in Bandadukka town. She paid Rs. 157670/- towards its price. It is registration number is KL-14 W 475 Opposite Party promised warranty of 30,000 kilometers or two year period mentioned in owner’s manual.
2. The vehicle engine created abnormal sound. Took the vehicle for service with Opposite Party on 17/08/2018 at that time vehicle covered 180 kilometer, starting trouble continued. Again brought for service and repair on 16/11/2018. The Opposite Party technician inspected vehicle opined that vehicle suffer from defects and will rectify it without removing its engine if kept for 11 days. Though Opposite Party promised delivery of vehicle after repairing on 27/11/2018, abnormal sound continued thereby confirmed manufacturing defect, for that main engine to be dismantled. Though promised refund of price later refused. Complainant claim refund of its price, replacement of vehicle and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with litigation costs.
3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed its written version. The Opposite Party admitted purchase of vehicle. But denied trouble. Opposite Party admitted reporting of tappet sound engine. Cam sleeve is charged. Sound of engine is of normal sound it was kept for re-delivery on 14/11/2019 but reported and delivered on 27/11/2018 sound problem continued . Arranged pickup service but came to know complainant changed place of residence, the Opposite Party is ready to attend repair. No manufacturing defect. Therefore no cause of action to file complaint and complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The complainant applied for inspection of vehicle by expert, petition allowed and expert inspected vehicle and submitted his report, report shows engine to be dismantled to find out manufacturing defect for that complainant did not agree.
5. The complainant and Opposite Party did not adduce oral evidence. Ext A1 is marked by complainant side, Ext C1 report submitted by expert.
6. From the documents and evidence made available following points arise for consideration
a) Whether vehicle suffers manufacturing defects and whether complainant is entitled for replacement of vehicle or refund of its price?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service of unfair trade practice in matter of service/repair?
c) Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
7. Issues are considered together for convenience. Complainant alleges that vehicle is having manufacturing defects steps are taken by complainant to prove manufacturing defects to the vehicle, no specific case as to defect of any part of the vehicle is defective or beyond repair. Expert though inspected vehicle and filed his report, stating that engine assembly to be dismantled to confirm manufacturing defect for which complainant did not agree. Hence we hold that there is no evidence to show that vehicle does suffer from manufacturing defect.
8. But fact remains that engine sound is abnormal but could not be solved by repair. Engine sound continued even after repaired re-delivery vehicle brought to the show room so many times for repair. The complainant was filed on 18/01/2019 itself.
9. So from the evidence made available it is proved that vehicle suffered abnormal sound right from the beginning and complainant has to rush to service centre every now and then though vehicle is serviced trouble continued and vehicle needs repair or replacement. Complainant deprived of its use for days together and it is evident complainant has suffered mental tension and agony and due to deficiency in service of Opposite Party. Hence it is held that there is negligence and deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Party in the matter attending to and service of the vehicle and thus complainant is entitled for compensation.
10. Thus we find that since there is no evidence to show that vehicle suffer any manufacturing defect therefore ordering replacement of the or allowing refund of its price does not arise. Opposite Party No:1 is directed to repair and service the vehicle including repair of its abnormal sound and keep ready for delivery trouble free in case brought for repair as covered by warranty.
11. Since the commission finds that there is deficiency in service the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony deficiency in service and also Opposite Party is liable to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.
12. Thus complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the Opposite Party to repair and service the vehicle as per terms of warranty conditions. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation and pay Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
C1- Inspection Report
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
