IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA Saturday the 31st day of December, 2016 Filed on 09.01.2015 Present - Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in C.C.No.10/2015 between Complainant:- Opposite Party:- Smt. Ramya Vinod M/s. Riders Motors Veliyil House Valiyachudukadu Poonthoppu Ward Thiruvambady, Alappuzha Avalookkunnu P.O. (By Adv. K.N. Azhakesan) Alappuzha – 688 006 (By Adv. K.T. Anishmon) O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is as follows:- On 30.12.2014 complainant purchased a vehicle Royal Enfield Bullet Classic 350 from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- . After covering 500 km. she noticed an unusual sound from the engine of the vehicle. She informed it to the opposite party. The opposite party stated that there is no such sound and whenever there is such sound they will repair it. After the first service when the vehicle covered after 1250 km. the complainant again noticed the said sound and she entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for effecting repairs. But the repairs did not improve the condition of the vehicle and she informed it to the opposite party and opposite party stated that they have to replace the head assembly of the vehicle and it was ordered by them. But complainant came to know that opposite party dismantled the engine of the vehicle. She could not ride the vehicle comfortably. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed. 2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:- The opposite party did not dismantle the engine or doing any engine repairing work. In order to replace the head assembly of the vehicle they have ordered a new one and they informed it to the complainant, but complainant did not approach them for doing replacement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The husband of the complainant examined as PW2. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party. 4. The points came up for considerations are:- - Whether there is any defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased Royal Enfield Bullet Classic 350 from the opposite party. According to the complainant, she noticed some unusual sound from the vehicle when it covered 500 km. and after the first service also the same sound was noticed and so she entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for repairing. Opposite party also admitted that complainant entrusted the vehicle for reducing the sound of the engine. According to the opposite party they opened the side cover of the engine in order to tune the engine for reducing the sound. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party dismantled the engine of the new vehicle without her consent. In order to prove the same, the vehicle was examined by an expert and the commission report produced and it marked as Ext.C1. In the commission report he stated that, “ engine repair ” He also stated that in order to tune the engine only, the side cover of the engine need be opened. So it is clear from the report that the opposite party dismantled the engine of the new vehicle without the consent of the complainant. In the commission report the expert stated that the vehicle has no engine defect and there is no need to replace the head assembly. Hence the Forum is of opinion that the opposite party dismantled the engine without any necessity for rectifying the complaint and it will reduce the market value of the vehicle. So we are of opinion that the conduct of the opposite party by dismantling the engine without the consent of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service which caused much mental agony to the complainant and it is to be compensated by the opposite party. In result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3000.- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) : Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) : Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) : Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Remya Vinod (Witness) PW2 - Vinod. V.Y. Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill Ext.A2 - Copy of the Certificate of registration Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
