Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/741

THE MANAGER PACE HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAMOD K K - Opp.Party(s)

G S KALKURA

08 May 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTAHPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 741/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 08.05.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.271/2013

on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod )

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                          :MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           :MEMBER
 

APPELLANT

The Manager, Pace Honda, Kovvalpally, Kanhangad, Kasaragod District

                                 (BY Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

                                                VS

RESPONDENT

Pramod.K.K, S/o.Kannan.K.V, Vengal, Near Yuvajana Club, Chruvathur.P.O, Kasaragod District

                                      (Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 The opposite party in CC.No.271/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to replace the defective parts of the motor cycle of the complainant and pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and Rs 6000/- towards cost to the complainant.

                       2.      The gist of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Honda CB Shine Motor Cycle from the opposite party and opposite party offered five years service warranty for motor cycle. After purchasing the motor cycle within two months some damages occurred on the foot rest and centre stand by loss of paint. When the complainant contacted the opposite party for replacement of the defected foot rest and centre stand, opposite party promised that those would be replaced, on the arrival of materials, but they have not done anything till the day. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

                 3.    In the version filed by the opposite party they contended that it is not correct to say that the paint of foot rest and centre stand is broken and they promised its replacement on arrival of its new one. If at all there is any fade in painting or colour, the same will be done at the cost of the opposite party and as and when the vehicle is brought for servicing, it was done at the earliest, giving top priority to its high quality, accuracy and in performance of the vehicle with due check and cross checks by qualified and experienced professional technical staff and supervisor.

                 4.    The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 & A2 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined on the side of the opposite party and no document was produced by them.

                 5. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

                 6.    Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

                 7.    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Honda CB Shine Motor Cycle from the opposite party and they have offered five years service warranty for the vehicle and prior to the first service it was noticed that paint on the foot rest as well as the central stand of the motor cycle was peeled off. He approached the opposite party to rectify the defect and they agreed to replace those parts. But they have not do so. Hence the complaint was filed. The opposite party denied the allegations made by the complainant. Ext.C1 is the report submitted by the expert appointed by the district forum. In Ext.C1 report it is stated that paint was flaked off from the rear foot rest brackets on both sides and only primer coating was seen. It is also reported by the commissioner that loosens of paint in some parts of the central stand and side stand was also seen. He had produced the photographs of the motor cycle. Based on Ext.C1 report and they had produced by the commissioner, the district forum directed the opposite party to replace the defective parts of the motor cycle.

                 8.    The counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has no case that there was any defect to any part of the vehicle except that paint was peeled off or faded completely from the central stand and rear foot rest of the vehicle. The complainant has no case that there was any damage to those parts. In these circumstances the direction of the district forum to the opposite party to replace the defective parts is not justifiable. The counsel for appellant submitted that the peeling off or fading of the paint from the stand and foot rest  of the motor cycle would be on account of the damages sustained  to the vehicle by the negligent use of the vehicle by the complainant himself. There is no evidence or circumstance to consider that the peeling off the paint from the central stand and rear foot rest of the motor cycle was due to the negligent use of the motor cycle by the complainant. Further in Ext.C1 report it is reported by the commissioner that paint flaked off from the rear foot rest on both sides and only primer coating is seen which is an abnormal case and is a manufacturing defect. Considering the facts and circumstances we consider that the order passed by the district forum is to be modified directing the opposite party to do the painting works of the central stand and rear foot rest of the motor cycle of the complainant, free of cost. The district forum has directed the opposite party to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and     Rs 6000/- as cost. We consider that the compensation and cost ordered by the district forum is on the higher side and those have to be reduced to Rs 5000/- and Rs 3000/- respectively. We do so. So the order passed by the district forum is to be modified to those effects.    

                 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. The opposite party is directed to do the painting works of the central stand and the rear foot rest brackets on both sides of the motor cycle of the complainant, free of cost within one month from the date of the copy of the receipt of the order and the complainant is directed to produce the motor cycle before the opposite party for that purpose. If the opposite party fail to carry out the painting works, within time, as directed, complainant is entitled to realize Rs 5000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation and Rs 3000/- as cost.

 

                 Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

                 At the time of filing of the appeal, the appellant has deposited Rs 8000/-. The respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount, on filing proper application, to be adjusted, credited towards the amount ordered as above.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTAHPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 741/2016

 JUDGMENT DATED :08.05.2019