G.KRISHNA MURTHY NAIDU Vs. HARAGOPAL AUTO MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. The appellant challenges by way of filing this appeal the order of dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, Vizianagaram in C.D.No.145 of 2005.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant purchased Yamaha Crux R in exchange with his Hero Honda Motor Cycle and paid on 13.1.2004 the balance amount after adjusting the amount of Rs.16,000/- towards the cost of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle. The appellant has purchased the Yamaha Motor Cycle from the respondent no.1. Soon after taking delivery of the vehicle, the appellant found a defect in its silencer and complained of the same to the respondent no.1 who replaced the silencer with a new silencer. Thereafter for about six months there was no problem or complaint in respect of the vehicle. During the fourth service at Parvathipuram, the silencer and gear case were found defective. The appellant has brought to the notice of the third respondent the defects in the vehicle and he had informed the same to the respondent no.1. The third respondent directed the appellant to the first respondent who in the first week of July 2005 agreed to replace of the silencer and gear case of the motor cycle within a month therefrom. For about three months the appellant could not approach the first respondent as he was suffering from severe back pain. On 1.4.2005 when the vehicle was taken to the respondent no.1, the problem of the vehicle was entered in the showroom garage record and half an hour later the respondent no.1 refused to replace the two items despite the warranty provided on the vehicle. The appellant has got issued a notice through Parvathipuram Divisional Consumers Welfare Council to the respondent no.1 and 2. Both the respondents did not give any reply nor did they pay the cost of the silencer and gear case to the appellant. The fourth and fifth service of the vehicle was done by the respondent no.3 and during the fourth service the defect in the silencer and gear case was found at the third respondent showroom which is the sub-dealer of the first respondent. The respondents no.2 and 3 remained exparte.

(3.) The respondent no.1 has resisted the claim contending that the appellant has purchased the motor cycle having made the physical verification of the vehicle. The appellant approached the first respondent and demanded for replacement of the silencer and gear case stating that he is a practicing advocate at Parvathipuram and he would file a case against the respondent no.1 in the court of law. On examination of the vehicle by the staff of the respondent no.1 nothing was found defective. If the spare parts were found defective beyond repairs, then replacement will be done within the warranty period. The appellant has got issued legal notice and after receipt of the notice the respondent no.1 offered to rectify any defect in the spare parts if at all there was a defect. The District Forum, Vizianagaram has no jurisdiction to try the matter since the appellant purchased the motor cycle from the respondent no.1 at Visakhapatnam. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complainant.