Date of filing        :  19-03-2015

 Date of order      :  24-10-2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                            CC. 72/2015

                      Dated this, the 24^th    day of October  2018

PRESENT:

SRI.ROY PAUL                                               : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M.                   : MEMBER

Ashalatha.H.G,

D/o.H.K.Damodhar,                                                 :Complainant

Residing Near Devi Temple,Nittadukkam,

Kanhangad P.O,Kasaragod.District.

(Adv: Valsala.K)

The Manager,

Pace Honda, Kovval Palli,Kanhangad                :Opposite Party

Kanahangad (P.O) Kasaragod District.

(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)

O R D E R

SRI. ROY PAUL : PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to replace a new vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle with compensation and cost to the complainant.

The case of the complainant in brief:-

            The complainant had purchased a brand new ‘Activa I’ scooter from opposite party on 11/09/2013 by paying Rs. 65,000/- . But said vehicle was a defective one having serious complaints including manufacturing defects.  Though the opposite party service centre tried to rectify the defects after receiving Rs. 5000/- as their charge from the complainant, the defects are s till persisting.  Now the complainant could not start or ride the vehicle. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 5000/- was levied from the complainant during the warranty period and vehicle was kept in the custody of the opposite party for more than  2 weeks  for the said repairing work.  The vehicle became useless; there is deficiency of on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money.

             The opposite party entered appearance before the Fora on receipt of the summons and submitted their written version. Opposite party has totally denied allegations levelled in the complaint as false and baseless.  According to the opposite party  the compliant is not a consumer .  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The complaint is not entitled for any reliefs and complaint may be dismissed with cost.

            On the basis of the rival contentions of the pleadings on the following issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part   of   the opposite party?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the any reliefs?

3.Reliefs and cost?

            The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext A1 to A3 and C1 document marked on her side.  The opposite party has adduced evidence through Dw1 also. 

Issue no 1

            The power of attorney holder of the compliant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version.  He was cross examined was Pw1 by the opposite party.  The documents Exts A1 to A3 and C1 report were relied on by him to substantiate the case of the complainant.  According to Pw1 there are serious defect including manufacturing defects for the vehicle .  Delivery of such a vehicle amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Ext C1 expert commission report is the best evidence to show the serious defects of the vehicle.  The complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the alleged repairing work done by the opposite party.  Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party  the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. 

            The opposite party adduced evidence through Dw1 to the tune of the pleadings in the version and the learned counsel for the opposite party  vehemently stated that there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged.  All the allegations levelled by the complainant are absolutely false and baseless. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

            On perusal of the pleadings, documents, and evaluation of the evidence before the Fora we hold that during the cross examination of Dw1 it is admitted that (“2014, 9þmw amkamWv Ahkm\ambn h­nbpsS kÀÆokv \S¯nbXv” “h­n IrXyambn kÀÆokv   sNbvXn«p­v” “h­n¡v c­p hÀjw extended warranty  sNbvXn«p­v . “5000 cq] kÀÆokv NmÀPv CuSm¡nbmWv h­nhn«p sImSp¯Xv”)

            Ext C1 report from the expert commissioner also clearly stated about the defects of the vehicle persisted.  The opposite party  has not filed any objection to the C1 report .  Dw1 also admitted there is fuel supply complaint for the vehicle and they were levied Rs. 5000/- as repairing charges during warranty period.  So we are of the view that there is serious defect for the vehicle during the warranty period and the same is still persisting.  We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the issue no 1 found against the opposite party and answered accordingly.

Issue No 2 & 3

            As discussed above due to the deficiency of the service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money.  From the forgoing discussions and finding we hold that the opposite party is liable rectify the complaints of the vehicle noted in Ext C1 report at free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Opposite party is also liable to refund the amount of Rs. 5000/- received during the warranty period from the complainant along with Rs . 20,000/- as compensation and 5000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issue no 2 and 3 also accordingly answered.

            In the result complaint is allowed in the following manner

1. The opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of the vehicle noted in C1 report at free of cost to the satisfaction of the compliant within 30 days of receipt of the order or to refund the price Rs.65000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint within the said 30 days.  After the repairing work, the vehicle shall be delivered to the complainant in the presence of an expert in the field.

2. The opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 5000/- with in interest @10 % per annum from the date of complaint to the complaint within the aforesaid 30 days. 

3. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within the said period. 

            The complaint is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

     Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1.03/10/2013  copy of the registration certificate of the Vehicle KL.60.F.8975

A2.11/09/2013 Photostat copy of the policy certificate of the extended warranty.

A3.Power of Attorney

Witness Examined

Pw1.Damodhar

Dw1.Shankunni Nambiar

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/