Date of Filing:13.08.2009<br /> Date of Order: 07.05.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 7TH DAY OF MAY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1968 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Muralimohan C.G.<br /> No.79, 9th Main Road,<br /> H.M.T. Layout, R.T.Nagar.<br /> Bangalore-32. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1.The Manager, <br /> City Honda,<br /> No.63, St. Marks Road,<br /> Bangalore-1. <br /> <br /> 2.Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter <br /> India Pvt.,Ltd.,<br /> Plot No.1, Sector-3, <br /> IMT (Manesar) Dist. Gurgaon:122050<br /> Haryana, India. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased Honda Aviator from Opposite Party No.1, on 6th August 2008 for Rs.52,398/-. Scooter has self-starter facility. The self-starter has not working properly right from the beginning. The matter was reported to City Honda Service Center many times. During 4th Free service an attempt was made to correct the problem. Though the battery was charged the problem has persisted. The opposie party informed the complainant on 1st June, 2009 that they will replace the battery and took the batter from his vehicle, promising to replace the same, but after about 8-9 days, the old battery was repaired fitted back without replacing the same. With the result, the complainant faced the same problem. He had to make many trips to the service center. He has brought to the notice of the dealer by writing on 18th June,2009. Fed-up with the in-different attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased new battery on 12th July, 2009 for Rs.850/-. Complainant unnecessarily suffered mental stress and tension by the scooter fitted with defective battery. The opposite party has guilty of selling a defective scooter and therefore liable to compensate to the complainant for the inconvenience caused and tension suffered besides reimbursing the cost of battery. The Complainant has claimed Rs.5,000/- compensation and the cost of the present proceedings. <br /> 2. The opposite parties has filed defense version stating that, the manufacturers or the dealer will not be liable for the electrical or mechanical fault. The battery is a part of the standard equipment the complainant did not bring to the notice of the opposite parties during the period of service and the opposite party never refused to rectify the defects or deficiency if any, including the charging of battery. The opposite parties were always cooperative in rectifying the defectives faced by the complainant. The opposite party has taken all the necessary steps to have the battery corrected so that the complainant may not have any difficulty. For the all the reasons stated above the opposite party have prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has filed documents. Heard the arguments on both side. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint has proved the battery fixed to the vehicle was defective. <br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complaint is entitled for cost of the battery and compensation. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is admitted case of the parties, the complainant has purchased Honda Aviator scooter from O.P.No.1 a dealer for Rs.52,398/- for that the complainant has produced the Receipt. It is the case of the complainant that scooter has self- starter facility and the said system was not working properly from the date of purchase. This problem was due to defective battery fixed to the vehicle. He brought the same to the notice of the opposite parties. The Opposite party informed the complainant that they will replace the battery and took, the battery from the complainant along with R.C. Book copy and warranty card. But, after 8-9 days the old battery was repaired and fitted to vehicle instead of replacing with new battery. Therefore, the problem faced by the complainant remained as it is. Fed up with this attitude of the opposite parties the complainant purchased new battery on 12th July 2009 for Rs.850/- to prove this fact the complainant has produced receipt dated 12-7-2009. By the documentary evidence and also the affidavit of the complainant it has been clearly proved and established that complainant had purchased a new battery for Rs.850/-. By the defense version it is very clearly that the battery was defective and the opposite party had accepted that the steps have been taken to correct the battery. They have also admitted that they have taken steps to rectify the defects, but unfortunately the opposite parties did not taken proper and efficient steps to rectify the defect. The problem faced by the complainant remained as it is. Therefore, the complainant was forced to purchase new battery by paying the cost for the same. Therefore, the complainant is right in asking the cost of the battery purchased by him along with compensation for mental tension and stress and inconvenience caused to him. The argument of the learned counsel of the opposite party that manufacturer of the battery is responsible for replacement, the same can not be accepted. There is no merit in that argument. The complainant has purchased a new scooter and it is duty and obligation of the opposite parties to market the vehicle which is free from any kind of defect. If a defect or problem is found in a new vehicle either with battery or any part it is responsibility of the dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle. Dealer is as much liable to the purchaser as the manufacturer for defective parts of vehicle. The opposite parties can not escape the responsibility in paying compensation and cost of the new battery purchased by the complainant. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala in a case reported CTJ March 2010 issue page 344, it has been held as under.<br /> “Dealer-Manufacturer-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Both the Manufacturer and its dealer are the necessary parties to the sale of a product- In case of any manufacturing defect alleged to be in that product, the dealer can not evade its responsibility- It is as much liable to the purchaser as the manufacturer” <br /> <br /> 6. Therefore, in this case the opposite party No.1 &2 are both liable to pay the cost of the battery and also compensation. The complainant has claimed Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony. I feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony and stress caused to him. The complainant is also entitled Rs.850/- the cost of the battery. The Consumer Protection Act is a Social and Benevolent Legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers, the complainant here in being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, his interest and rights are required to be protected in passing orders for payment of cost of the battery and compensation. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The Opposite party No.1 & 2 both are jointly and severely directed to pay the cost of the battery of Rs.850/- along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a from the date of this order till payment / realisation. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the Opposite Parties. <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7TH DAY OF MAY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />