By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

The complainant stated his grievances as follows:-

1.        The complainant had purchased an APRILA Bike from the first opposite party. The first opposite party is the dealer and second opposite party is the manufacturer.  According to the complainant, he remitted Rs. 1,25,000/- on 19/08/2021 and the  first opposite party issued bill for Rs. 1,16,500/- only.  It is informed by the opposite party that balance amount is charged for extra fittings of the vehicle and other charge category.  It is stated in the complaint that the vehicle was affected with shivering of handle bar and there was instability to the vehicle.  Consequently the first opposite party inspected the vehicle and reported that the road condition caused the defect. Even after undergoing four services, the defect of the vehicle was not rectified.  The register number of the vehicle is KL-10-BF-7589 and the opposite parties assured of warranty period for 24 months.  On 28/06/2022 while the complainant was driving the vehicle, same was skidded and the complainant and pillion rider, named Muneer sustained injuries.  It is stated that the bike was overturned due to the attempt of saving a dog, as that was   crossing the road.  It is averred that bike was damaged and huge amount was spent for repairing work. The complainant stated that vehicle was suffered inherent manufacturing defect.  The fork and chassis frame of the vehicle are defective and vehicle was not fit for road.  Even after repairment work, the vehicle was not suitable for driving on the road and it is inferior in quality.  According to the complainant, he purchased the subject vehicle on the basis of advertisement and undertaking of the opposite parties that the vehicle is keeping good quality and safety measures are very high.  The complainant stated that the defect of the subject vehicle cannot be rectified.  The complainant suffered financial loss of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The complainant also   had suffered irreparable loss and damages. So the complainant approached the Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to take back the subject vehicle and refund Rs. 1,25,000/- as the cost of the vehicle  received from the complainant.  The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant  for  the sufferings of mental agony and  hardship due to the act of the opposite parties.  The complainant also claimed cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.

2.    The complaint is admitted and issued notices to the opposite parties. The first opposite party received notice but not appeared before the Commission and hence set exparte.  The second opposite party appeared through counsel and filed version not within the time specified in the statute. So the Commission does not consider the version of the second opposite party as legal impediments are existed.  So the Commission proceeded the matter for adjudication without opposition to the case of the complainant.

3.     The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the part of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4 documents.  Ext. A1 document   is the copy of cash receipt dated 19/08/2021 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,16,500/- (Rupees One lakh sixteen thousand  and five hundred only). Ext.A2 document is the copy of Certificate of Registration of the subject vehicle showing the ownership in favour of the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of estimate bill dated 01/07/2022 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant showing the expenditure for repair works.  Ext. A4 document is the copy of out-patient record issued by P.M.S.A Memorial Malappuram District Co-operative Hospital showing the treatment of pillion rider after the occurrence of accident.

4.      Heard the complainant.  Gone through entire documents and affidavit available for scrutiny. The Commission considered the following points for adjudication:-

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant?
2. If yes, what will be the remedy as relief and cost?

5.Point No.1 and 2 :-

       The complainant stated that he had purchased the subject vehicle from the first opposite party, which was manufactured by the second opposite party.
According  to the complainant, as stated in the  complaint and affidavit, he paid Rs. 1,25,000/- to the first opposite party, but  bill was issued only for Rs. 1,16,500/- and copy of bill is produced before the Commission. The Commission marked the copy of bill as Ext. A1 document.  The complainant also produced copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle and same is marked as Ext. A2 document.  Ext. A1 shows the quantum of payment.  It is further stated by the complainant that the first opposite party taken the balance amount out of Rs. 1,25,000/- as charge for extra fittings.  But no bill is issued for the same.  The non issuance of bill to the complainant can be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.  No vicarious liability can be casted upon the second opposite party on the aspect of non issuance of bill. The complainant further alleged that the subject vehicle is suffered inherent manufacturing defect.  It is stated by the complainant that the vehicle was affected with shivering of handle bar and instability to it. The defective fork and chassis frame causes the vehicle not fit for riding on the road.  According to the complainant on 28/06/2022, the subject vehicle skidded on the road while he was riding along with his relative.  It is alleged that accident was caused due to the defect of vehicle.  It is also stated that the complainant and his relative named Muneer, who was pillion rider sustained injuries in the accident.  The complainant produced copy of out-patient record issued by the hospital authority to show the injury sustained to the pillion rider in the accident.  The copy of out-patient record is marked as Ext. A4 document.  The complainant also produced copy of estimate bill issued by the first opposite party with regard to the repairment of the damaged vehicle and same is marked as Ext. A3 document.  Ext. A4 document shows that there was a road accident as alleged in the complaint.  Ext. A3 document also shows that the subject vehicle was required repair work as stated in the complaint.  Item number 17 and 20 mentioned in Ext. A3 document supports the contentions raised by the complainant.   The chassis number shown in Ext. A2 and Ext. A3 document are one and same.  So the Commission finds that the vehicle purchased from the first opposite party has suffered defects and the second opposite party is also liable for the same.  There is no contra evidence available in this case.  So the complainant succeeded in proving his contention raised in the complaint.  The compensation claimed by the complainant need not be allowed as claimed.  But the apprehension of chance for accident in future is to be reckoned.  So considering all the aspects discussed above, the Commission allows the complaint in the following manner:-

1. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service resulting due to non issuance of proper bill to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle. 
2. The second opposite party  is directed to refund  Rs. 1,25,000/-(Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only)  to the complainant as the price of the subject vehicle  collected at the time of sale  and also directed to take back  the vehicle  from the complainant’s residential  premise after  by bearing  the cost of transportation  by the second opposite party.
3. The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship resulted due to the deficiency in service by the second opposite party.
4. Both the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings. 

The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum, from the date of order till its realisation.

Dated this 28^th day of April, 2023.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                            : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                          : Ext.A1to A4

Ext. A1 : Document   is the copy of cash receipt dated 19/08/2021 issued by the first

               opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,16,500/- .

Ext.A2 : Document is the copy of Certificate of Registration of the subject vehicle

               showing the ownership in favour of the complainant.

Ext.A3 : Document is the copy of estimate bill dated 01/07/2022 issued by the first

               opposite party to the complainant showing the expenditure for repair works.  Ext.A4 : Document is the copy of out-patient record issued by P.M.S.A Memorial

               Malappuram District Co-operative Hospital showing the treatment of pillion

               rider after the occurrence of accident.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                        : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                     : Nil

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

CPR