State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kathi Nagi Reddy Son Of Narsi Reddy, Aged ... vs 1. Sri Vigneshwara Motors, 6.2.562, ... on 20 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/269/2014 ( Date of Filing : 02 May 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/03/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/40/2012 of District Nalgonda) 1. Kathi Nagi Reddy Son of Narsi Reddy, Aged 35 Years, Occ Milk Supervisor, R.o. B. Annaram Village of Mirualaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. Sri Vigneshwara Motors, 6.2.562, Siddartha complex, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda 508 001 rep. by its Manager 2. 2. Honda Motors Cycle and Scooter India Private Ltd., Plot No.1 Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Dist Gurgaon, State Haryana, Rep. by its General Manager ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 20 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 269 of 2014 AGAINST CC No. 40 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM, NALGONDA Between : Kathi Nagi Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy Aged 35 years, Occ : Milk Supervisor, R/o B.annaram Village of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District .. Appellant/complainant And Sri Vigneshwara Motors, 6-2-562, Siddartha Complex, Hyderabad Road, Nalgodna - 508 001 Rep. by its Manager. Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Private Ltyd Plot No. 1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Dist Gurgaon, State Haryana, Rep. by its General Manager. ,..Respondents/opp. parties Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M. Ramgopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. V. Narasimha Rao for R-1 M/s. Ch. Suresh for R-2 Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Tuesday, the Twentieth Day of March Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2014 made in CC 40 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Nalgonda.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Honda two-wheeler with Engine No., JC36E2541103 and Chassis No. ME4JC36CAC8411568 on 09.02.2012 from OP.1 and took delivery vide challan no. 4636. But the vehicle started giving trouble from 22.02.2012, he shifted the same to the workshop of the first opposite party, who, informed him that there was a problem in the engine and rectified it and assured that there will be no such problem and returned the vehicle. Again, the same problem arose on 28.02.2012 and on 22.03.2012 but OP.1 show room could not rectify the same and on 02.04.2012 the vehicle stopped running. At last, he was informed that there was basic in the engine. He incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards repairs and at last he handed over the same to the work shop of the first opposite party. He issued a legal notice on 11.04.2012 demanding replacement of the vehicle. The opposite party neither replaced the vehicle nor gave any reply. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the two-wheeler with a new one or pay cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.57,738/-, Rs.30,000/- towards repair charges, compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4). The opposite party no.1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, which was adopted by second opposite party, while admitting the purchase of the vehicle in question from them, contending that there was no engine problem. On 22.02.2012, 22.03.2012, the appellant/complainant brought the vehicle for servicing and the technicians attended the same and delivered to him in good working condition. On 02.04.2012, he brought the vehicle and handed over the same at their workshop without any complaint and thereafter did not turn up but issued legal notice. Thereafter, they replied on 23.04.2012 and also sent an e-mail informing him that the vehicle weas ready for delivery without an problem but he did not take back. They also offered to bear his expenses and in case any defects are found, they are also ready to attend it. There was no response. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-7 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B9.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint. .
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents, rebuttal thereof and along with written arguments.
9) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No.1 : There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased a Honda two-wheeler with Engine No., JC36E2541103 and Chassis No. ME4JC36CAC8411568 on 09.02.2012 from OP.1 and took delivery vide challan no. 4636 form the first respondent/first opposite party. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant brought vehicle to the work shop of the first respondent/1st opposite party on 22.02.2012, 22.03.2012 and also on 02.04.2012, but, the appellant/complainant contending that he brought the vehicle for repairs, whereas, the respondents/opposite parties rebutting that it was for servicing. 11). The appellant/complainant brought Gangavarapu Ranga Rao, mechanic of his choice on 20.02.2013 vide order of the District Forum dated 11.02.2013 and after satisfying himself that there was no further problem he took back the vehicle, but, he filed a memo that the vehicle is till giving trouble. 12). The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there are contradictory versions of mechanic, Gangavarapu Rao, i.e in Ex.A7 he stated that there was certain mechanical problems in the vehicle and that the opposite party no. 1 chcked the same and found problem in the engine and in Ex. B-9 sworn affidavit, he stated that on 20.02.2013 at the instance of the appellant/ complainant, he went to the workshop of the first respondent/1st opposite party and that he checked the vehicle, ran it for 6 kms, and found no problem and on 22.02.2013 his mechanic went to Chandampally and found that the petrol reached reserve stage and thus there was air lock and he has no experience in running the vehicle. 13). Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the District Forum ignored that the vehicle was handed over to the first opposite party on 02.04.2012 and the same was kept with them up to 11.2.2013 and the District Forum failed to observe still the problem is continuing despite rectification of the defects. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued supporting the impugned order. 14). We have perused Ex. B-3, Job Card, dated 22.03.2012, which shows that vehicle in date/Time mentioned as 1.15 on 22.03.2012 and out date/time as 5.30 for the problem ' Engine Sound' and it is O.K. after repairing. Ex.B-4, Job Card, dated 02.04.2012 shows for the problem 'chain sound' and after repairing it is O.K. From the above Job Cards, it is revealed that there was problem in the engine but it was rectified. Even though, if it is true that it is only a mechanical defect, but, it is new vehicle, it is not a second hand vehicle. He purchased the vehicle to enjoy at least for some time. From the beginning itself it was giving trouble even after rectification also and in those circumstances, how can we expect that it will survive to the satisfaction of the customer. Suppose if the vehicle is not giving any trouble and if it is perfectly in good working condition, then, what is the use for the appellant/complainant to keep the vehicle for such a long time from 02.04.2012 till 11.2.2013 in the work shop of the respondents/opposite parties and what benefit he will get from it. When a new vehicle was bought with problems definitely it will lead to mental agony to the customer. In the present circumstances, the problem would be solved if the engine was replaced with a new one. 15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that if the engine of the said vehicle was replaced with a new one, it will meet the ends of justice. 16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 24.03.2014 in CC 40 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum, Nalgonda and consequently the complaint is allowed in part holding and directing the respondents/ opposite parties jointly and severally liable to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with a new one in good working condition to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant and also to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 20.03.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER