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. 11/2011 Filed on 17.01.2011

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2015

Complainant:

Jayaleela, W/o Thankaraj, T.C 11-1172, Watps Lane, Near Holy Angels School, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By Adv. Dougles Linsby N.R)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector-3, IMT Manasar District, Gurgaon-122 050.

2. M/s Marikar (Motors) Ltd., Marikar Buildings, Opposite Secretariat, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

                (By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

This C.C having been heard on 21.04.2015, the Forum on 30.05.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The complainant in this case purchased a motor bike on 04.05.2009 from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  After six months of its purchase the chain of the vehicle was loosened and 2^nd opposite party adjusted it.  But after a year of purchase adjusting the chain became impossible due to wear and tear.  The sprocket wheel teeth became tearing and became impossible to ply the vehicle and has been plied up to 30000 km and now it is kept idle due to non-supply of spare sprocket wheel and chain.  The opposite parties are bound to supply the spares because 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and 2^nd opposite party is the dealer and supplier of spares.  The opposite parties are selling new motor cycle of the same brand having sprocket wheel and chain.  It is unfair practice from the part of the opposite parties as they intentionally and deliberately with a view to sustain heavy loss and injury and severe hardships.  Hence filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the sprocket wheel and chain to the vehicle of the complainant or else supply with a brand new motor cycle of the same kind to the complainant with immediate effect and to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant with costs. 

Opposite parties accepted notice and entered appearance.  The 2^nd opposite party filed version and 1^st opposite party filed memo adopting the same contention as that of the 2^nd opposite party and also read as the version of 1^st opposite party also. 

The opposite parties in their version admitted that the complainant had purchased a vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 22.04.2009.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle on being fully satisfied and of her own free choice.  The vehicle is having manufacturer warranty for two years or 32000 kms whichever is earlier.  The vehicle in question is not maintained properly and did not bring the vehicle for any free services or paid services except the 2^nd free service on 12.09.2009 when the vehicle had covered a distance of 3613 km.  At that time reported complaints were attended and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on the same day itself.  Thereafter the vehicle was not produced for any service or warranty attention as per the terms of warranty and the complainant has abandoned all six numbers of free services and hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any benefit as per the terms of warranty or on goodwill basis. 

Issues:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Both complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents.  On complainant’s side Exts. P1 to P3 marked.  Opposite parties also filed one document. 

Issues (i) & (ii):- The complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to replace the sprocket wheel and chain or else supply with a brand new motor cycle along with compensation and cost.  The vehicle has been plied up to 30000 km within one year and the 2^nd opposite party failed to replace the sprocket wheel and chain.  So the complainant is compelled to keep the vehicle idle.  But the complainant did not produce any document or expert opinion for proving her case when the opposite parties contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 22.04.2009 with full satisfaction and the manufacturer’s warranty is for a period of two years or 32000 km whichever is earlier.  The complainant failed to maintain the vehicle properly.  As per the job card produced by opposite parties only the 2^nd free service on 12.09.2009 was done and that is also when the vehicle covered a distance of 3613 km.  The complainant has abandoned all the six numbers of free services and the vehicle had covered 30000 km within a short span of 18 months from the date of purchase.  Moreover the opposite parties contended that the sprocket wheel and chain are not the items which cover warranty issued by the manufacturer.  No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove otherwise.  The opposite parties also stated that there are other authorized service centres where the vehicle of the complainant can be serviced and the opposite party also stated that after 2^nd service the whereabouts of vehicles are not known to the opposite party.  Here the complainant did not produce any document to substantiate her case.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice proved against the opposite parties.  Complainant did not take any effort to prove her case.  She did not produce any document to show that proper service has been done to the vehicle.  Hence we are of the view that complainant failed to prove her case and it is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

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 30^th day of May 2015.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 11/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Tax invoice for Rs. 49,625/-

P2     - Delivery receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party

P3     - Copy of certificate of registration

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL            

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb