QUADROS MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. PRANALI CHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Present Revision has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 37 of 2014.

(2.) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant/Respondent No.-1 had purchased a new Suzuki Access-125 Scooter from Opposite Party No.-1/Petitioner on 23.07.2011, bearing Registration No GA-07-J-3054. The total price consideration of the Scooter was Rs. 57, 000/- (Fifty Seven Thousand Only). After registration of the Scooter on 5.10.2011, on 7/10/2011 the Scooter stopped functioning. Complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party No.-1 who directed to take the Scooter/vehicle to Mapusa Garage on 8.10.2011. The Mapusa Garage returned the Complainant's Scooter duly serviced on 11.10.2011. On the next day i.e on 12.10.2011, the Scooter suddenly stopped functioning at the residence of the Complainant. He intimated this fact to the Mapusa Workshop who informed the Complainant to take the Scooter to Margao workshop. The Scooter was duly serviced by the Margao Service Station and the Scooter was handed over to the Complainant on 24.10.2011. Again on 02.11.2011 the Scooter stopped functioning. The Scooter was taken to the Margao Workshop by the Manager of Opposite Party No.-1. The Scooter was kept for almost 15 days under observation and was returned to the Complainant on 15.11.2011 with an assurance that there would be no further Complaint of the Scooter and it would work smoothly. For next nine months the Scooter was functioning smoothly and again on 9.09.2012 stopped functioning. Telephonic intimations were given several times to the Opposite Party No.-1 regarding the malfunctioning of the Scooter. Opposite Party No.-1 had not taken any steps to rectify the defects. Opposite Party No.-1 further stopped entertaining the phone calls of the Complainant. Due to non-cooperation of Opposite Party No.-1, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 18/09/2012 which was not replied by Opposite Party No.-1. Aggrieved with the deficient service ofOpposite Party No.-1, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 78 of 2012 before the District Forum with the following prayer-

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by Opposite Party No.-1 by filing written statement. It was contended that the Complainant's father could not start the vehicle as he was not following the instructions given at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The Complainant got the Scooter serviced only 3 times as against the 7 times as advised by the manufacturer. The Complainant had breached these mandatory conditions and therefore was not entitled for warranty. On 12.10.2012- Opposite Party No.-1 replied to the Legal notice dated 18.09.2012 addressed on behalf of the Complainant and instructed the Complainant to bring the vehicle to its service station to verify his grievances.Opposite Party No.-1 stated that although the reply to the Legal Notice was delivered to the Complainant on 15.10.2012, the Complainant chose not to act on the same and opted to approach District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the matter and perusing the record held that the Complainant did not carry out timely servicing as per the Operation Manual, breach-of-service condition ceased the liability of Opposite Party No.-1. The District Forum dismissed the Consumer Complaint for lack of merit.