Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd filed a consumer case on 08 Oct 2021 against Roop.H.Nalavade in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/625/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Jan 2022.
Karnataka
StateCommission
A/625/2020
Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd - Complainant(s)
Versus
Roop.H.Nalavade - Opp.Party(s)
Raghunath
08 Oct 2021
ORDER
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. Roopa.H.Nalavade D/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 34 years, No.89, A block, SBM Colony, Chamaraja Mohalla, Bogadhi, Mysuru-570026
2. Friendly Motor Cycles No.1825, Arundhati Complex, JCST, K Block, Adichunchanagiri Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru-570023
(R1 – Party in-person)
..…Respondents
O R D E R
BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 283/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore.
The brief facts of the case are that : OP No. 1 is authorised dealer of two wheeler Vespa SXL 150 and OP No. 2 is manufacturer. Complainant purchased two wheeler Vespa SXL 150 on 28.04.2017 from the OP No. 1 for Rs.1,28,048/-. The complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- cash and balance amount by raising loan from Capital First Limited Mumbai.
It is the case of the complainant that on the fourth day of delivery of the vehicle, the two wheeler got switched of automatically at the signal junction near Apollo Hopsital, Kuvempunagar, Mysore though she tried to start it with self starter it did not work. The complainant had given the said two wheeler to the OP No.1 for service on 01.07.2017 and 28.07.2017, though service was free of cost, but, the OP no.1 has charged Rs.600/-. The complainant again faced problems if the vehicle namely vehicle mileage was only 20 kms. for 1 litre of petrol, batteries are very low, it has problem of starting by self and horn button was not working. The OPs have not rectified the defects in the vehicle as such she has suffered mentally. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs lodged the present complaint.
After service of notice OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version separately. OP No.1 admitting purchase of vehicle by the complainant and admitting service of vehicle on 01.07.2017 and 02.08.2017 denied all other allegations of complainant.
Op No.2 / manufacturer in its version contended that the mechanic Mr.Varun has attended the allegations of complainant and he has explained the features and mechanical working of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further it is stated that unless the vehicle has been periodically maintained as per the instruction contained in the manual book, the subsequent appearance of problem in the vehicle, the manufacturer is not responsible in any way. There is no defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant but she did not handle the vehicle properly as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Thus, sought dismissal of complaint.
District Forum on the basis of pleadings and evidence led in by both the parties deemed it fit to allow the complaint directing OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of two wheeler amounting to Rs.1,28,048/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 28.04.2017 till the date of payment to the complainant and also ordered OPs to pay Rs.35,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order.
Heard counsel for appellant and respondent in-person.
Two Wheeler vehicle Vespa SXL 150 said to have been purchased by the complainant on 28.04.2017 for Rs.1,28,048/-. The complainant said to have paid cash of Rs. 50,000/- and balance amount by raising loan from Capital First Limited, Mumbai.
Non-supporting of the self starter, only vehicle which was kept for show has been delivered and the vehicle was taken to OP No. 1 in 01.07.2017 and also on 28.07.2017. OP said to have charged Rs.600/- though it was free service. There was said to have been mis-behaviour by the OP/ service centre of the manufacturer. In this regard complaint said to have been lodged.
Counsel appearing for the appellant / manufacturer submits in the service centre some mis-behaviour from staff of No. 1 on the complainant for which he is not responsible.
It appears that no keen interest was taken by the service centre to provide service. As per the observation of the District Forum, speedometer was not working, battery was not properly functioning and there is mention of other deficiencies and having taken into consideration the version filed by the OP Nos.1 & 2, District Commission passed an order to refund amount of Rs.1,28,048/- is just and proper. It does not require any interference.
On perusal of the impugned order we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded at Rs.35,000/- is on higher side. Hence, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/- and ordered to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. The interest awarded is also reduced from 10% to 6% p.a. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is disposed of with modification.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,28,048/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 28.04.2017 till the date of payment. The OPs are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/-
President
Sd/-
Member
CV*
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.