KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.FA 78/11

JUDGMENT DATED 28-7-11

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                           :  MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.                M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.,

Registered Office 34, Community Centre,

Basant Lok, Vasanth Vihar,

New Delhi – 110057.

2.                Gayathri Motors,

Viswam Arcade, N.H. 47,

Chandranagar, Palakkad.

( By Adv. M/s. S.G. Chancery Chambers)

Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.                Mohammed Rafi.C.

S/o. Chellappa

Akbar Manzil,2/470, Chengapotta,

Collengode P.O., Palakkad – 678506.

2.                M/s. Ansil Motors,

Opp. Co- operative Urban Credit Society,

Nenmara Road, Kollengode.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C.S. Rajmohan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF Palakkad in CC No. 63/2008 dated 29-11-2010. The appellants are the opposite parties 3 and 2 and the respondents are complainant and the 1^st opposite party respectively.

          1.      This appeal prefers under the order of the forum below that allowed the complaint and directed the forum below that to the opposite parties; jointly and severally to pay the cost of the vehicle of Rs.38,565/- with cost  Rs.2000/-. The complainant is directed to turn to the vehicle to the opposite parties at the time of payment. Order shall be complied with in 1 month from the date of receipt of order of failing which the whole amount shall carrying interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

          2.      The complainant purchased a new Hero Honda Passion Plus petrol motor bike from the 1^st opposite party. The allegation is that during the 1^st journey from the show room to house; the complainant felt riding difficulties in smooth movement of the handle. It was claimed that the same day itself the complainant informed the riding difficulties to the opposite parties. Then the 1^st opposite parties asked the complainant to meet for the service after the first service. It was informed that the mistake has been corrected and smooth riding will be possible. It is claimed that during the return trip again the complainant has felt the same trouble as earlier. Then the complainant informed to the 1^st opposite party and was alleged at the advised to wait till the next service. It was further alleged that the complainant was suffered pain on his shoulders and treatment was carried out. It was claimed that during the next service the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the problem is due to the manufacturing defects and they have informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite parties. There after it is further claimed that the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the Chief Engineer from Hero Honda will be visiting the showroom during June 2008 and the dispute can be discussed. However, since the complainant was not satisfied with the explanation from the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

          3.      The opposite parties 1 and 2  contended  in other version that the complainant has came for his first service to the 1^st opposite party and as informed about the sound from the front side of the vehicle. The mechanic attached to the 1^st opposite party checked the vehicle  and it was found that there was no sound. The mistake was pointed out by the complainant and the same was duly explained