BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 415/2012 Filed on 22.11.2012
ORDER DATED: 27.04.2016
Complainant:
V. Sanakan, Chavarkonathu Veedu, Oonnampara, Anakudy P.O, Vamanapuram, Nedumangadu.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
- Marikar Honda Manager, T.B. Junction, Attingal P.O, Near R.T. Office.
- Branch Manager, Marikar Honda, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.
- Managing Director, Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector-3, IMT Manesar, Dist. Gurgaon-122 050, Haryana.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This case having been heard on 15.03.2016, the Forum on 27.04.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
The gist of the complainant’s case is that he had booked Twister Disc Brake-2 wheeler having red in colour and paid full amount of Rs. 57,984/- on 27.10.2012. On 30.10.2012 complainant received a phone call from opposite party that whether the complainant is amenable for taking a defective red coloured vehicle after repair. Complainant is not amenable and complainant opted for a white colour vehicle. He noticed some scratches on the vehicle and 2nd opposite party compelled to take the vehicle otherwise they will not refund the amount. Complainant accepted the vehicle without the promised offers such as free helmet, insurance, extra fittings and service without payment for charge for oil. Complainant approached this Forum that he has not received the offers such as extra fittings. He was compelled to take the vehicle with scratches, the vehicle was a pre-driven one after disconnection of speedometer, the vehicle was not having disc brake, delay in refunding the amount for disc brake, opposite party not given the choice of colour, opposite party has taken more amount than mentioned in the advertisement, opposite party has not delivered the vehicle within time, the vehicle is not having offered mileage, opposite party offered defective vehicle for a consumer who has paid the full amount. Complainant claims Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family.
Notice sent to opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed version. As per the version opposite parties contended that complainant has taken the vehicle of his own choice and free will. Complainant opted white coloured vehicle because red colour vehicle was not available and complainant is not ready to wait for getting the same. Complainant has not made any complaint regarding the scratches at the time of delivery and not at the time of free service. The price of the oil will not come under the free service. Complainant demanded for maximum discount and put forward the demand for free helmet. Helmet is not an extra fitting. There is no delay in delivering the vehicle, but only procedural delay for registration before the RTO. Complainant has filed this complaint only for unlawful enrichment.
Issues:
- Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 marked. Complainant cross examined by opposite party. Opposite parties filed chief affidavit and Exts. D1 to D5 marked and opposite party was cross examined by complainant. Perusing the evidence and documents marked complainant utterly failed to prove his allegations leveled against the opposite parties. Complainant has not reported regarding scratch on the vehicle at the time of delivery or thereafter at 4 free services. No commission is taken to prove regarding the scratches or to show that the vehicle was a pre-used one. Helmet is not an extra fitting. The offer for helmet made mentioned in the advertisement is only in the month of November, for that complainant is not entitled because he purchased the vehicle in October prior to the advertisement. Complainant failed to produce the pass book of his bank only to hide that opposite parties have credited Rs. 3,361/-, the excess money collected for disc brake. Complainant failed to prove his case and we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the case of the complainant and complaint is to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 27th day of April 2016.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 415/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Sanakan
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of booking form issued by O.P to complainant dated 29.10.12.
P2 - Copy of cash receipt voucher No. CR/6788 dated 29.10.2012 issued
by O.P to complainant.
P3 - Copy of cash receipt voucher No. CR/6789 dated 29.10.2012 issued
by O.P to complainant.
P4 - Copy of booking form issued by opposite party to Mrs. Ajithakumari
dated 31.10.2012
P5 - Copy of receipt No. CR /11920 dated 31.10.2012 issued by O.P to
Ajithakumari.
P6 - A sheet of Malayala Manorama Daily dated 12.11.2012.
P7 - Brochure of Honda CB Twister.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - J. Suresh Babu
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of registration details of vehicle No. KL 21 F 7783
D2 - Original job card issued by O.P to complainant dated 29.11.2012
D3 - Original job card issued by O.P to complainant dated 29.01.2013
D4 - Original job card issued by O.P to complainant dated 14.03.2013
D5 - Copy of job card issued by O.P to complainant dated 29.05.2013.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
