DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 12.08.2022.
CC/145/2022
Arun.C.S, S/o.Sivaraman, - Complainant
Erimayur PO, Chimbukkad, Alathur,
Palakkad-678 546.
(By Adv.M/s.Sivaprasad.K and Surjith A.V)
VS
1. Managing Director, Suzuki Motorcyle -Opposite Parties
India Private Limited, 2nd Floor,
Plot No.1 Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.
2. The Manager, Pannivelil Motors Private Limited,
NH47, Chandranagar,
Palakkad-676 517.
(By Adv.J.Saju Abraham)
3. The Manager, Mangattil Motors Pvt Ltd,
Kozhikode Road, Konompara,
Melmuri, Malappuram-676 517.
4. The Manager, Able Scoobikes lip,
Near Gokulam Junction,
NH47, Alathur, Palakkad-678 541.
(1st and 4th OPs-Ex-parte, 2nd OP by Ad.J.Saju Abraham and
3rd OP-by Authorised person)
ORDER
BY SRI. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a SUZUK I GIXXER SF 150 motorcycle from the 2nd opposite party on 30.12.2020 by paying a consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-. He purchased it on believing the brand and advertisement of the 1st opposite party though television and other medias.
The 1st and the 2nd services of the vehicle was done by the 2nd opposite party and the 3rd and the 4th by the 4th opposite party. At the time of the 5th service, he noticed a noise coming from the engine and approached the 2nd opposite party for repair; but they did not attend his grievance. So, he approached the 3rd opposite party an authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party. They did not properly attend the problem and done some adjustment repair. After few days, huge noise started emitting from the engine while starting the vehicle and the 3rd opposite party promised to service the engine properly.
They serviced and returned the vehicle stating that the engine defect is rectified.
But the problem persisted and after few months, on 18.06.2022, the engine of the vehicle blasted with huge sound and thereafter he could not start the engine. The vehicle was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for repair. Even after, repeated requests, they did not return the vehicle after repair.
The newly purchased vehicle became useless by engine breakage within the warranty period itself. Due to the manufacturing defect of the new vehicle, complainant suffered huge financial loss and mental agony. The vehicle was kept idle in the garage of the 2nd opposite party for repair for about 50 days. The repeated complaints of the vehicle even after major repairs clearly shows that the vehicle has serious manufacturing defect. Since the defects occurred during the warranty period, the opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle with a new one.
The complainant caused to send lawyer notice to the opposite parties. The notice to the 3rd opposite party returned un served and all other opposite parties received notices. The 2nd opposite party sent reply stating false and baseless allegations.
The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So, he approached the Commission for the following reliefs;
1) For directing the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle with a new one.
2) To pay a sum o fRs.30,000/- towards damages caused to the complainant.
3) To pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The 1st and the 4th opposite parties did not appear or file version and they were set ex-parte. Later the 1st opposite party filed petition to set aside ex-parte order along with version; but it was dismissed as we have no authority to set aside ex-parte order.
3. The 2nd opposite party in their version contended that the complainant purchased the motorcycle from their show room on 31.12.2020 and had the 1st and the 2nd services at this opposite party’s service centre on 25.01.2021 and 03.03.2021 respectively. At the time of 2nd service, the vehicle had covered 3674 kms. All other services were done from other service centres.
Thereafter the vehicle was brought to their service centre only on 20.06.2022 with a complaint of crack in the engine case. At that time, the vehicle had covered more than 25,000 kms. On 21.06.2022, they got an e-mail from Area Manager, Cochin to do the repair and service. Immediately, the opposite party verified the damaged parts and collected all parts required to be replaced and obtained the approval from SMIPL for repairing the vehicle under warranty and it was intimated to the complainant through e-mail on 27.06.2022. The complainant specifically instructed the opposite party not to do the service/repair work of the vehicle till he informs to do so and hence, they could not start the work.
On 1st July 2022, they informed the complainant about the difficulty to retain the vehicle without doing the repairs. They denied the rest of the allegations in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are ready and willing to do the repairs on getting permission from the complainant. The opposite party is not liable to give the reliefs claimed and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. The 3rd opposite party in their version stated that the vehicle was brought to their service centre on 11.10.2021 and they serviced the vehicle as per the complainant’s demand. Again he bought the vehicle to this service centre on 11.11.2021 and on 24.11.2021 to do oil change and general service. On 15.02.2022, the complainant approached this opposite party with a complaint of sound from the engine and they replaced parts including crank shaft bearing, under warranty and returned the vehicle on 18.02.2022. Again he approached the 2nd and the 4th opposite parties for service. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and they prayed for exception from any liability.
5. From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1) Whether the motor cycle in question suffers from any manufacturing defect ?
2) Whether the opposite parties failed to provide proper and timely after sale service to the complainant as per the conditions of warranty?
3) Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
4) Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
5) Reliefs as to cost and compensation ?
6. Complainant filed an application for the appointment of Expert Commissioner and it was allowed. Thereafter the complainant filed an application IA.No.171/23 to call for documents form opposite parties 2 to 4. The 1st opposite party filed vehicle history as per the IA. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A19 marked from his side. Marking of Ext.C1 is objected to on the ground that it can be marked only through the expert. Expert was examined as CW1 and the report is marked as Ext.C1. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B7 marked from their side. Evidence closed and heard the parties.
7. Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that after the 5th service of his motor cycle, a noise started emanating from the engine. He approached the opposite parties 2 to 4, the authorised service centres for repair. Even though they inspected and returned the vehicle stating that the defect is cured, the problem persisted. On 18.06.2022, the engine of the vehicle blasted with huge sound. Complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repair of the vehicle. But they did not attend the issue and delayed the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was kept in their garage for more than 50 days. According to him, the continuous issues in the vehicle is due to its manufacturing defect.
8. In order to prove his contention, he filed an application for the appointment of an Expert to inspect the vehicle. The AMVI, Regional Transport Office, Palakkad was appointed as the Expert Commissioner. The Expert made the following observations in his (Ext.C1) report.
“Cylinder block found broken at two locations both front an rear of the engines and strongly suspect that the breakage is due to severe internal damages.” He suggested that “the whole engine assembly and other damaged parts caused by the Engine failure have to be replaced with new one”.
He also noted that the vehicle was not in roadworthy condition. The Expert Commissioner did not report that the defect cannot be cured and it is a manufacturing defect. The complainant’s allegation about the defect in the engine is found to be correct as per the Commission report and the whole Engine assembly has to be replaced for making it roadworthy condition. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point Nos.2 and 3
According to the complainant, the engine of the vehicle became defective within the warranty period itself. He approached the opposite parties 2 to 4 for getting the vehicle serviced/repaired. The opposite parties did some adjustment repair and returned the vehicle. They did not take any effort to find out the actual problems and rectify the defect.
The 2nd opposite party had stated that whenever the vehicle is brought to their service centre, they serviced the vehicle properly and when it was brought for repair on 20.06.2022 with the issue of crack in the engine case, they were ready to repair and replace the damaged parts. But the complainant was not willing for that and did not give permission to do the necessary repairs. He was not ready to take this vehicle from their service centre even after repeated intimations. The 3rd opposite party also contended that they properly serviced the complainant’s vehicle whenever it is brought for service.
10. The 2nd opposite party had marked Exts.B1 to B6 in evidence. Exts.B2 to B4 are the print out of the E-mails send by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Exts.B3 and B4 confirms to the above contentions taken by them. Finally, the 2nd opposite party concluded in the E-mail dated 1st July stating that “since we are not able to keep this vehicle unrepaired on the shop floor for more than 10 days, we are going to repair your vehicle under warranty by tomorrow and will deliver the vehicle ASAP”. The complainant contended that the 2nd opposite party took 50 days for repairing the vehicle and even after repair, the issue is not rectified. Hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have attended the issue when the vehicle was brought to them for service and expressed their willingness to repair it by changing damaged parts under warranty and repaired it also. But since the vehicle was found with Engine defect and not in roadworthy condition, the opposite parties were not successful in attending the issue properly and it is a deficiency in service on their part.
11. Points 4 and 5
The complainant purchased the vehicle on 30.12.2020 and within the warranty period itself, the defects in the engine started. So, he is entitled to get the vehicle repaired under warranty as per the suggestion made in the Expert Commissioner’s report. Since the vehicle was repaired by the 2nd opposite party, they are directed to;
1) Replace the whole Engine Assembly and other damaged parts which became defective due to the engine failure with new one, free of cost to the complainant’s satisfaction and make the vehicle roadworthy or to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of replacement.
Since the 3rd and the 4th opposite parties are authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party, no separate liability in cast upon them.
2) The 1st opposite party manufacturer is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs..25,000/- for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by the complainant and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the litigation. Since the 1st opposite party is difficult to access, the 2nd opposite party, dealer shall comply with this and to get the amount reimbursed by the 1st opposite party in the routine course of business.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the order, till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Photocopy of the RC book of the vehicle SUZUKI GIXXER SF150 Black Color motorcycle having Register No.KL 49 M 5901 dated 28.01.2021.
Ext.A2: Photocopy of warranty information booklet of the SUZUKI GIXXER SF150 Black Color motorcycle having Register No.KL 49 M 5901
Ext.A3: True copy of the lawyer notice issued by Adv. K.Sivaprasad to the respondents dated 06.07.2022.
Ext.A4: Original replay notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 21.07.2022.
Ext.A5: Acknowledgement due card having receiving seal of the 1st respondent dated 11.07.2022.
Ext.A6: Acknowledgement due card having receiving seal of the 1st respondent dated 15.07.2022.
Ext.A7: Unserved cover of the layer notice issued to the 4th respondent dated 16.07.2022.
Ext.A8: Print out of tax invoice issued by the 3rd respondent to the complainant dated 15.02.2022.
Ext.A9: Original of the job card issued by the 3rd respondent to the complainant dated 15.02.2022.
Ext.A10: Original of the job card issued by the 3rd respondent to the complainant dated 11.10.2022.
Ext.A11: Original of the job card issued by the 3rd respondent to the complainant dated 14.10.2021.
Ext.A12: Original of service bill issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dated 03.03.2021.
Ext.A13: Original of tax invoice issued by the 2nd respondent to the complainant dated 03.03.2021.
Ext.A14: Original of the tax invoice issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dated 29.04.2022.
Ext.A15: Original of tax invoice issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dated 12.04.2022.
Ext.A16: Original of the job card issued by the 2nd respondent to the complainant dated 25.01.2021.
Ext.A17: Photocopy of the job card issued by the 2nd respondent to the complainant dated 20.06.2022.
Ext.A18: Original of cash receipt issued by the 2nd respondent to the complainant for the purchase of SUZUKI GIXXER SF150 Black vehicle dated 30.12.2020.
Ext.A19: Original of Tax invoice issued by the 2nd respondent to the complainant for the purchase of SUZUKI GIXXER SF150 Black vehicle dated 30.12.2020.
Ext.C1: Commissioner’s Report.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Copy of the intimation received from area manager.
Ext.B2: E-mail message sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 24.06.2022.
Ext.B3: E-mail message sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 27.06.2022.
Ext.B4: E-mail message sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 01.07.2022.
Ext.B5: Copy of the E-mail message from Raison Rappai Area Manager Service Cochin to the 2nd opposite party dated 04.07.2022.
Ext.B6: Reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party through the counsel Saju Abraham Advocate to complainant counsel K.Sivaprasad Advocate with A/D card and Postal receipt.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
CW1: Manoj Kumar T.S, AMVI, RTO enforcement, Kottayam.
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 15,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
