Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
21st day of May 2016
C.C.226/12 filed on 16/5/12
Complainant : P.R.Praveen, Puthan Thrayil House,
Parappukkara.P.O., Thrissur.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1. The Proprietor, Johns Honda,John’s Bi-
wheelers, Orma Palace Bldg., Near Christ
College Jn., P.O.Irinjalakuda.
2. The Proprietor, Johns Honda, Johns Arcade,
Guruvayur Road, P.B.No.622,
Ayyanthole.P.O., Thrissur.
3. Honda Motorcycle & scooter (pvt.) Ltd., Plot
No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(By Adv.P.G.Devadas, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a motor bike from the 1st opposite party on 17/1/11. However the vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party, they issued the purchase bill of 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was used by the complainant with care and caution.
2. Within 1½ months from the purchase, the vehicle became in an improper working condition. It showed severe starting trouble and was taken to the 1st opposite party’s firm in a goods auto rickshaw. That was repeated on several times. Moreover, the chain of the bike used to get loosening on several occasions. The vehicle was brought before the 1st opposite party on various occasions, whenever it shows complaint. But they could not rectify the defects properly. Because of that the complainant felt severe mental agony and financial loss also.
3. The opposite parties sold a vehicle to the complainant having several complaints, which cannot be rectified. This act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. The complainant issued a lawyer notice, but no relief received. Hence this complaint is filed.
4. On receiving notice, all the opposite parties entered appearance through counsel. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed detailed version. 3rd opposite party submitted that there is no separate version for them. In the version filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, they have admitted the sales of the vehicle, but strictly denied all other allegations stated in the complaint. They specifically denied and submitted that the vehicle sold by them was not having any sort of defects or complaints. If at all any complaints were shown by the vehicle that was only because of excessive use of the vehicle by the complainant. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties a Stunner bike was sold to the complainant on 4/3/11 and it was brought for the first service on 10/3/11 at 846km. The 2nd service done on 12/4/11 at 2684 km. and the 3rd service was on 9/5/11 at 4495km. and repair service conducted at 6571km. On 4/6/11 the vehicle brought with complaint of self starting and that was rectified on the very same day itself. On 9/7/11 the vehicle was brought before the 2nd opposite party’s service centre for 4th service at 8695km. At that time automatic failure of engine and battery complaint was reported by the complainant. By head decarbonisation and recharging of battery, these complaints were rectified with the satisfaction of the complainant. Then on another three occasions i.e. on 21/7/11, 13/8/11 and 26/9/11, the complainant brought the vehicle with minor complaints and all the complaints has been rectified with the satisfaction of the complainant. The track record of the vehicle shows that there was excessive usage of the vehicle. That is why decarbonisation of the head assembly happened to be done at 8695 km. It may be caused because of using of contaminated and impure fuel. However on 27/9/11 a similar complaint was reported by the complainant but he was not amenable to bring the vehicle before the opposite party for rectifying the defect. The loosening of chain and other complaints are only because of excessive usage of the vehicle.
5. According to the opposite parties they have not committed any sort of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect for the vehicle. The opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that:
1) Whether there was any manufacturing defect for the vehicle in dispute?
2) Whether any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite parties?
3) If so what costs and reliefs?
7. From the side of complainant he has appeared before the Forum and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and narrated all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He has also produced three documents which are marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Ext.P1 is purchase invoice dated 4/3/11; Ext.P2 is copy of lawyer notice dated 24/9/11 and Ext.P3 is postal receipt. Commissioner’s report is marked as Ext.C1.
8. From the side of opposite party, Service Manager and the authorized person one Mr.M.O.John filed counter proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and explained all the contentions raised in their version. Three documents are produced from the side of opposite parties, which are marked as Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R1 is notice received from the complainant’s side dated 26/9/11, Ext.R2 is reply notice dated 7/10/11 and Ext.R3 series (13 Nos.) are job cards. Both side filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.
9. The case of the complainant is that the motor bike purchased by him from the opposite parties showed several complaints including starting trouble within a short span of time from the purchase, which according to the complainant is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
10. But the opposite parties contended that there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. They produced Ext. R3 series work orders, which would go to show that proper periodical services and repaire works were conducted to the vehicle. There was no defect to the vehicle, which could not be rectified.
11.We have perused the documents produced from both sides as well as the contents of the affidavit. According to the complainant he has purchased the vehicle on 17/1/11. Whereas in Ext.P1 purchase invoice submitted by the complainant would go to show that the vehicle was purchased on 4/3/11. That date is admitted by opposite parties also. Ext.C1 is the report submitted by the expert commissioner, who is appointed by the Forum. There is a specific question put to the expert commissioner that whether the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. But he has not stated in his report to the effect that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defects. Only mentioned that the vehicle shows a starting trouble which rarely occurs. But he never stated that the cause of starting trouble is manufacturing defect. Moreover the commissioner has stated that the vehicle has run 30,002 km. at the time of inspection. He has also noted some sort of alterations made to the vehicle. The tyres were changed, additional horn was fixed and the wiring kit was also found changed. For the last two weeks of the inspection the vehicle was kept idle. The spark plug was found burned out. Hence he could not start the vehicle.
12.The burden is upon the complainant to prove with cogent proof that the vehicle in dispute is having manufacturing defect, which could not be rectified.
13.Ext.R3 series (13 Nos.) job cards would go to show that all the periodical services as well as repair works were conducted to the vehicle. The job cards also contain the details of complaints reported by the complainant and works done by the opposite parties. We have perused the job cards in detail and we could find only minor troubles reported by the complainant. Nowhere in the 13 work orders, the complainant has not reported about the starting trouble of the bike. Looseness of chain was adjusted on two or three times. That is very common as far as the two-wheelers are concerned. In all the job cards except one, the complainant has put his signature by expressing his satisfaction. On that day when the customer has not put his signature, only break cleaning was conducted. We have compared the entries made in the job card regarding kilometers run with the version submitted by the opposite parties. It is found that the vehicle has run the same kilometers as mentioned in the version.
14. The main contention raised by the opposite parties is that the excessive usage of the vehicle. All the contentions raised in the version are supported with Ext.R3 series documents. It would go to show that the vehicle in dispute was used in excessive by the complainant. However, there is no stipulation for usage of the vehicle or restrictions is made by the manufacturer. There is no evidence produced before us by the complainant to show that on several occasions he has taken the vehicle to the service centre in goods auto rickshaw. Considering the points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the complainant could not prove any sort of manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The complainant also could not prove before us that any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on the part of opposite parties. However, there is an allegation stated in the complaint regarding issuance of bill by the 2nd opposite party for the vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party, there is no prayer in the complaint to that effect. Moreover, there is no proof produced from the side of complainant to show that he has purchased the vehicle from the 1st opposite party.
15. In the result we dismiss this complaint without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 21st day of May 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 purchase invoice dated 4/3/11
Ext.P2 copy of lawyer notice dated 24/9/11
Ext.P3 postal receipt
Opposite Parties Exhibits
Ext.R1 Notice dated 26/9/11
Ext.R2 Reply notice dated 7/10/11
Ext.R3 series (13 Nos.) - Job cards
Ext.C1 – Commission report
Id/-
President
