The court considered the inability of the opposite parties to rectify the defect in the motorcycle and the refund of the cost of the vehicle as a resolution of the issue, leading to the finding of no deficiency in service.

ORDER

Thiru J. Jayaram, Presiding Judicial Member - This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli passed in C.C. No. 29/2013, dated 1.7.2013, dismissing the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer, on 22.12.2012 paying Rs. 68,800/- and the motorcycle developed some problems from the date of purchase and the motorcycle was producing noise from the Fork which was reported, to the 1st opposite party to rectify the defect. In spite of the best efforts by the opposite parties the fork sound could not be controlled and the defect could not be rectified. Therefore the opposite parties admitted the defect and refunded of the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 68,800/- to the complainant taking back the vehicle. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.

3. According to the opposite parties for the fork racer but the complainant did not allow them to do the job dismantling the fork. However they refunded the cost of the vehicle viz., Rs. 68,800/- to the complainant taking back the vehicle from complainant.

4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties could not rectify the defect namely noise from the fork and it was so, since the complainant did not permit them to dismantle the fork and to rectify the defect. Therefore we find that the complainant is at fault in not allowing the opposite parties to dismantle the fork and rectify the defect.

6. It is further relevant to note that the opposite parties could not rectify the defect and so they refunded the cost of the vehicle viz., Rs. 68,800/- to the complainant on taking back motorcycle from the complainant.

7. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and it does not warrant interference of the Commission.

9. We agree with the finding and the decision the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.