F.A. No. 176 of 2013. Case: S. Subbiah Vs Rehoboth Honda Vehicles and Ors.. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberF.A. No. 176 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: P. Pethu Rajesh, Advocate and For Respondents: A. Haja Mohideen, Advocate
JudgesJ. Jayaram, Presiding Member (J) and M. Murugesan, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2015) CPJ 145
Judgement DateJuly 08, 2015
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

J. Jayaram, Presiding Member (J)

  1. 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. 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.

  2. According to the opposite parties for the fork problem they suggested lubrication of 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT