IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 22nd day of February, 2023.
Filed on 22.04.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
CC/No.99/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt.Manju Reghuvaran 1. M/s Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt.Ltd.
W/o Aneesh Mohan Kheri Dhaula, Village Badshahpur
Mariyath, Pattanakkad P.O. NH-8 Link road, Gurgaon, Cherthala, Alappuzha Haryana-122004
(Adv.Prem Sankar.K)
2. M/s Rajavalsam Motors Pvt.Ltd.
Near SD college, Kalarcode,
Alappuzha-688003
Rep.by its Authorised Signatory
(O.P.1 rep by Adv.Sri.Baby P.Antony &
O.P.2 by Adv.M.G.Reshu)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
Complainant had purchased a Suzuki access scooter from the showroom of the 2nd opposite party situated at Ottapunna, Cherthala Taluk. It was manufactured by 1st opposite party and the vehicle was registered with registration No.KL 32 P 5167. 2nd opposite party is authorised service provider for the 1st opposite party.
2. At the time of purchase road side assistance was also offered. The periodical services of the vehicle has been conducted by the 2nd opposite party at regular intervals. The vehicle which was delivered to the complainant was a defective one and from the 1st day itself complainant had bitter experience with the vehicle. Break down of the vehicle was a regular phenomenon. When the complainant informed about the complaint to the 2nd opposite party they took the vehicle and returned stating that maintenance was done after keeping for several weeks. But the actual defects were not cured. The 1st service dated 16.12.2020 was recorded in the service record book. The vehicle is having cardinal engine problem. Eventhough the vehicle is having a warranty for 5 years, 2nd opposite party had grabbed money as labour charges for services and maintenance conducted and for replacing the mechanical parts.
3. On 15.02.2022 when the complainant was on her way to office the vehicle met with breakdown while riding through National highway 66. The vehicle was moved to nearby home and informed the 2nd opposite party about the issue. Recovery van has not been supplied to collect the vehicle to the workshop of 2nd opposite party. Complainant managed to took the vehicle with the help of pick up van and entrusted the 2nd opposite party for service.
4. The service history of the vehicle is not maintained properly. On 22.03.2022 complainant sent an email to the 2nd opposite party complaining about the anomalies crept with the vehicle as well as failure on the 2nd opposite party to resolve the said anomalies but there was no reply. This amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is filed for giving an order to replace the vehicle and claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
5. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The contents of the complaint are denied as being far from truth and as being exaggerated version of facts. The relationship between opposite parties are principal to principal basis. This opposite party is not a necessary party in this complaint. After riding the vehicle for about 8879 Kms brought the same to the 2nd opposite party on 22.04.22 for the 1st time for issue of self start. The battery of the vehicle was replaced and the issue was rectified. Since the warranty of the battery had expired in November 2021 2nd opposite party demanded price for the same but it was denied by the complainant and so the vehicle is kept with the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was brought for the 1st service on 16.12.2020 with no complaint. When the vehicle was brought for 3rd service it had already covered 6954 Kms. There was no issue till the 3rd service. Only after running 8879 Kms limit time self start issue occurred and it was rectified by changing the battery. Complainant had availed free services provided on 16.12.2020, 01.06.2021 and 11.11.2021. The vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect and complainant has failed to prove the same. There was no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. 2nd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.11.2020 and the complainant had concealed the date of purchase in the complaint. The averments that the vehicle is not performing as per the claim put forward by the company is false. Complainant had not effected the proper periodical maintenance services to the vehicle as prescribed in the manual. The averments regarding unnatural sound, cardinal engine problem, grabbing of labour charges etc. are absolutely false and incorrect.
7. The vehicle is a fast moving motor vehicle and is having good reputation. The electric starter system is mainly supported by battery equipment and it depends on the customer in using the said system as per the directions thereto. The battery system gets weekend and will show poor performance in its functioning of the vehicle if it is kept unused for days together. The products like battery, tyres, sparking plugs etc. are being manufactured by different companies and the manufacturers of the said products are liable if any defects occurred in relation to the same during the warranty period. Hence the offer of extended warranty will not cover the above said products.
8. On 22.04.2022 complainant produced the vehicle complaining about self starter problem. After examining the problem the battery was replaced, conducted maintenance and effected over all check up including water service and even filled one liter of petrol as the petrol tank was in empty position. Complainant was informed to take delivery of the vehicle but inspite of repeated demands delivery was not taken. Complainant declined to effect the payment of the battery unit and the service charges thereto. During the course of the proceedings being initiated before this Commission complainant lodged a frivolous complaint at the Cherthala Police station. In the end complainant came to the opposite party and was fully satisfied with the performance of the vehicle. However delivery of the vehicle was not taken. Complainant is bound to remit the price of the battery unit of Rs.1,100/-. This opposite party had extended its best service to the complainant. There was no deficiency of service and hence the groundless complaint may be dismissed with cost.
9. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to replace the vehicle as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties as prayed for?
- Reliefs and costs?
10. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ext.A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite parties.
11. Point No.1 to 3
PW1 is the complainant. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A4. During cross examination Ext.B1 was marked.
PW2 was working as AMVI at Alappuzha. On 24.11.2022 he inspected the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 32 R 0184 and prepared a report. It is marked as Ext.C1.
12. PW3 is the husband of the complainant. He stated that during 2020 PW1 purchased the scooter from the 2nd opposite party. From the date of purchase onwards it was having complaints. It used to stop while running. The matter was informed to the 2nd opposite party. On two occasions he had collected the vehicle when it was stopped in the midway. Now also there is defect for the vehicle. Two defects were not noted by the AMVI though it was pointed out to him.
13. RW1 is the General Manager of the 2nd opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B2 and B3.
14. PW1, the complainant is the registered owner of Access scooter bearing Reg.No. KL.32-R-0184. She purchased the same from the 2nd opposite party M/s. Rajavalsam Motors Pvt. Ltd. As per Ext.A3 invoice dtd. 12/11/2020. It was manufactured by the 1st opposite party M/s Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd. Ext.A1 is the copy of Registration certificate infavour of PW1. As per Ext.A2 dtd. 13/11/2020 she had availed extended warranty upto 11/11/2025 or upto 60,000 kms. Now the case of complainant is that from the date of purchase onwards the vehicle was showing complaints. It is alleged that the vehicle sold to her was having manufacturing defect. While she was riding the scooter it used to stop as its own and the engine had unnatural disturbing sound while riding. On several occasions the vehicle stopped in the midway while she was riding through National Highway towards her office. It is also alleged that when the vehicle was entrusted for repairs with the 2nd opposite party who is an authorized service centre they grabbed money though the vehicle had a warranty of 5 years. Hence the complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service and for giving a direction to the opposite party to exchange the vehicle with a new one and claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version denying the averments. According to 1st opposite party since complainant could not prove any mechanical defect for the vehicle, there is no deficiency in service from their part. It was also contended that the relationship between the opposite parties are principle to principle basis and so if there is any deficiency in service from the part of 2nd opposite party they are not liable. 2nd opposite party contended that as and when the vehicle was produced for repairs it was done immediately. PW1 produced the vehicle with complaint of self start and it was cured by replacing the battery. Since the complaint occurred after the expiry of warranty of the battery they demanded price of the same but PW1 left their workshop without paying the amount. Hence according to them there is no deficiency of service from their part and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4. During cross examination Ext.B1 was marked. The husband of the complainant was examined as PW2. As per the request of the complainant an AMVI was deputed to inspect the vehicle. Accordingly on 24/11/2022 he inspected the vehicle and prepared a report. The AMVI was examined as PW3 and the report was marked as Ext.C1. From the side of the opposite parties General Manager of the 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B2 and B3 were marked. PW1 was examined on 13/12/2022 and her husband was examined as PW2 on 17/12/2022. PW2 was not cross examined by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The AMVI was examined as PW3 on 21/1/2023. After examination of PW1 to 3 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has not turned up. It appears that they had abandoned the case. The learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties pointed out that there was no deficiency in service from their part. They had only demanded price for the battery since it became defective after the warranty period. It was also pointed out that after filing the complaint the vehicle was taken back by the complainant and on 11/7/2022 she issued Ext.B1 satisfaction letter. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
15. As discussed earlier the allegation of complainant, PW1 is that the vehicle was having mechanical defect and it used to get off at the time of riding and the self start system was not working. PW2 who is the husband of PW1 in chief examination stated that on several occasions he used to collect the vehicle when it was stopped mid way while PW1 was using the vehicle for going to office. According to him certain defect was pointed out to AMVI was not noted by him.
16. PW3 AMVI inspected the vehicle on 24/11/2022 and prepared Ext.C1 report. Ext.C1 report shows that at the time of inspection the odometer reading was 11,330 kms. The 1st and 4th service were done properly and 2nd and 3rd were dropped out due to outbreak of Corona. He could not find out any anomalies regarding engine and shock absorber of the vehicle. The test drive conducted by him neither showed overheating of engine nor any abnormal sound of the engine part. The self start of the vehicle is working and the manual starting showed some delay. So the only defect noticed by PW3 was the delay in starting the vehicle by manually. Though PW2 husband of the complainant has got a case that certain defects which was pointed out to PW3 was not noted no such defect was pointed out at the time of examination of the AMVI. As discussed earlier the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties relied upon Ext.B1 satisfaction report. It is noticed that on 11/7/2022 PW1 had issued Ext.B1 satisfaction letter which reads as follows: “Purchased new battery on 27/5/2022 (Exide battery) with warranty, physically checked the mechanical condition of vehicle had done water service and filled one liter petrol.” PW1 has acknowledged the same and received the vehicle to her entire satisfaction. It is noticed that the complaint was filed before this Commission on 22/4/2022 and Ext.B1 satisfaction letter was issued on 11/7/2022. During cross examination PW1 stated that after filing the complaint 2nd opposite party contacted her. She also admitted that the self start was not working since there was no battery support. The vehicle was purchased on 12/11/2020 and the warranty of the battery had already expired. She is aware about the same. She also admitted that initially he did not pay the price of the battery. So from the evidence on record it appears that the complaint was filed on account of certain misunderstanding between the parties. However after filing the complaint the dispute was settled between them and it can be seen that on 11/7/2022 complainant issued satisfaction letter. It is also noticed that RW1 the witness from the side of 2nd opposite party was not cross examined by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. After examining PW1 to 3 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant did not turn up. It is also an indication that the parties have settled the matter. PW1 is seeking a relief of exchange of the vehicle and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. From Ext.A3 it is seen that the vehicle was purchased on 12/11/2020 and the complaint was filed on 22/4/2022. From Ext.C1 report which is prepared on 24/11/2022 it is seen that the vehicle had done 11,330 kms on the date of inspection. So it is an indication that the vehicle was running smoothly except the problem of self start. The said defect was cured by changing the battery. From Ext.C1 report it is seen that the vehicle is not having any defects as pointed out by the complainant. In said circumstances complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and so these points are found against her.
17. Point No.4:
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of February, 2023.
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Sd/-Smt.Sholy.P.R (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Manju Reghuvaran(complainan)
PW2 - Aneesh M.M.(Husband of the complainant)
PW3 - Anoop P. (AMVI)
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC Book
Ext.A2 - Tax Invoice cum warranty Registration
Ext.A3 - GST vehicle sale
Ext.A4 - Insurance Policy certificate
Ext.C1 - Commission report/AMVI’s report
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sureshkumar G. (O.P.2)
Ext.B1 - Satisfaction letter
Ext.B2 - Job card
Ext.B3 - Copy of satisfaction
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Comp.by:-
