Bajaj Auto

TanuTanu Senior Member
edited January 2014 in Automobile



Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia ...Presiding Member

Smt. Caroline Collasso ... Member.

Appeal No. 20/ 2008

1. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

through Managing Director,

Akurdi, Pune 411 035.

2.M/s Sitara Motors Ltd.,


Navelim. Goa 403707.

3.M/s Caculo Auto Park Pvt. Ltd.,

Shanta Building, St. Inez,

Panaji-Goa. 403001. … Appellants

(Original Opposite Parties)


Mr. Lawrence Mario Braganza,

19/12, Khorlim, Mapusa,

Bardez, Goa. …Respondent

(Original Complainant)

For the Appellant …Shri U. Rao, Advocate and

Adv. R. Gauns present at the time of order.

For the Respondent …Shri V.K. Punaji and

Advocate N. Kamat holding for Adv. R. Kolwalkar present at the time of order.

Dated: 15-04-2009


[Per Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member]

1. This order will dispose off judgment and order dated 20-02-2008 of the District Forum, North Goa in consumer dispute no.34/04. The Respondent No.1 herein is the original complainant, and the appellant No.1, 2, and 3 herein, are opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 before the District Forum. For sake of convenience, they will be named as such in this order.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle for Rs.59,567/- on 01-08-2002 from opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer and opposite party no.3 is the Service Centre at Panaji of opposite party no.1. It is the case of the complainant that immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, it started giving trouble, i.e. when he released the first gear, the rear wheel the chain and the sprocket started vibrating. Even after repairs and replacement, there was no improvement. The engine cover was opened many times and there was a lot of vibration on the bike. The clutch plate was replaced four times and repaired three times. The pressure plate and clutch assembly was also replaced. The clutch assembly was sent from Bangalore by one Shri Nabu John but it was of no use. The complainant had produced a copy of the Service Chart indicating such repairs.

3. The complainant stated that the vehicle was under warranty which expired on 01-08-2004. He also sent legal notice dated 07-03-2003, but there was no reply from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant stated that he was entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony or in the alternative, for replacement of the vehicle, or the refund of the total purchase price with interest at 18% p.a. from 01-08-2002 till realization of the amount.

4. The opposite parties in their written version stated that the complaint was false and beyond warranty. While admitting that the clutch plates/clutch assembly was repaired and replaced and other repairs carried out, they denied any defect in the vehicle. They further stated that the various parts of the bike were changed “to satisfy the complainant’s demands”. They also stated that the vehicle was in perfect condition and there was nothing wrong with it. The Opposite Party stated that the complaint was filed on fictitious allegations without any evidence of technical or mechanical malfunction in order to extract money from the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. The affidavit-in-evidence was filed by the complainant wherein he has stated that the warranty period of his vehicle was two years of 40,000 kms whichever is earlier and at the time of filing of the complaint, both were not completed. He further reiterated that there is a mechanical defect to the vehicle and after filing the complaint, the vehicle was taken for repairs on two occasions. The affidavit-in-evidence of the opposite parties reiterated their averments in their written version. Written arguments were filed by all the parties and on hearing of arguments, the District Forum passed the following order:-

a) The Opposite Parties are directed to replace the vehicle with fresh warranty.

b) Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages.

c) Order to be complied within 30 day’s from the receipt of this order.

6. Aggrieved by this order – opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 enters this Appeal inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order was non-speaking; that it suffered from non application of mind; that the District Forum has over looked the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties as well as the affidavit-in-evidence wherein they had proved beyond any doubt that there does not exist any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, that the District Forum could not have ascertained the issue of manufacturing defect without appointment of an expert which was an indispensable tool for purpose of finding out the reason for the frequent mal-functioning of clutch and pressure plates in the bike; that the District Forum over looked the efforts made by the opposite party to ascertain the defect in the bike every time it was brought to their Service Centre; that the District Forum has over looked the fact that the complainant was not properly handling the bike which was leading to the constant friction between clutch plate and pressure plate which was thus wearing out, that the District Forum had punished the Appellants for a case that is devoid of merit and have made observations contrary to the earlier decisions passed.

7. We have perused the entire record of the case. It is seen that the vehicle was purchased on 01-08-2002. Within a period of 18 days, the bike was giving trouble and needed to be taken for servicing on 19-08-2002. The service record chart annexed indicate that the clutch plate was replaced on three occasions, the first time being on 21-09-2002, i.e. after purchase. The clutch plate was also repaired and pressure plates replaced. On record is also a letter of the complainant dated September 24, 2002 addressed to the Service Manager of the Opposite Party at Pune.

8. Vide this letter, the complainant had brought to the notice of the opposite party that “till date, there is a problem of strange sound originating from clutch plates of this bike every time clutch is released in first gear. They have opened the engine three times. Once the clutch plates were replaced by a Service Centre without analyzing the cause of failure and I found that after last repairs of my bike, two days back, the problem of noise from the clutch plate is still persisting”.

9. Vide letter dated 2nd October 2002, the Asst. Manager of the opposite party company admitted receipt of the above letter of the complainant and stated that they were taking up the matter with their Territory Manager to get the vehicle thoroughly examined and take necessary corrective action. Since the problem in the vehicle continued, the complainant through his advocate, sent legal notice dated 7th March, 2003 stating that the vehicle continued to give trouble and even after repairs and replacement, there was not improvement.

10. Vide the notice, the complainant sought refund of the purchase amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till the realization of the amount in default of which legal action would be taken. Since there was no reply to the notice, on 10-03-2004 the complainant lodged a complaint before the District Forum, North Goa.

11. Dealing with the first issue of the opposite parties that the complaint was not maintainable, because the vehicle had already consumed the warranty; we note that the opposite parties in their reply, have clearly stated that “the warranty for this class of vehicles is 24 months or 40,000 kms, whichever occurs earlier. Besides, the complainant in his affidavit in evidence has stated that the warranty of his vehicle was not complete at the time of filing of the complaint, in our opinion, the complaint has been filed within the existing warranty.

12. Coming to the next issue on whether the complainant had proved that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, a perusal of the complaint and the Service Record Chart clearly indicates the clutch plates being repaired and even having to be replaced on three occasions.

13. We are of the opinion that any consumer purchases a vehicle for his use and enjoyment often with hard earned money, it will surely be frustrating and cause much inconvenience if such vehicle has to be taken repeatedly to the Service Station for repairs and servicing.

14. As noted earlier, the vehicle in question started giving problems within 19 days of its purchase. In that same month the complainant vide his letter dated 24th September, 2002, had written to the opposite party that every time there was a problem of sound originating from the clutch, his bike had to be kept at the Service Station for two days which gave him a lot of inconvenience and expenditure and thus the purpose of buying a vehicle was defeated.

15. No doubt, the complainant has not produced any report of an expert to show that the motor bike suffered from any manufacturing defect. The opposite party had relied on the case of the Hon’ble National Commission in Keshab Ram Mahato v/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Reported in I (2003) C.P.J. 244, wherein it was held that in the absence of any expert evidence, it was not possible to conclude that the bike had manufacturing defects.

16. Each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. The opposite parties have not denied that the vehicle needed constant repairs and even replacements of the clutch plates/clutch assembly of the vehicle. We also note that every time the vehicle was taken to the Service Station of the opposite party, it was repaired and returned to the complainant.

17. However, as stated earlier when a consumer purchases a new vehicle he can assume it to be trouble free at least in the initial months of its use. If a new vehicle requires such constant repairs and replacement there is obviously some problem in the vehicle and it is the duty and responsibility of the opposite parties who earn profits on such sale, to see that the consumer does not face hardships, inconvenience, and expense. The District Forum while marshalling the evidence, has stated that they do not understand that when a brand new vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 01-08-2002, that during the first service on 19-08-2002, the clutch plate should be replaced within 18 days of purchase. The District Forum further opined that in the light of the fact that the clutch plate was replaced within 18 days, could be held to be a major defect in the vehicle. The District Forum has also fortified their opinion by relying on the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd., versus Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2008 CTJ Vol. 16 No.II, Page 140.

“In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power.

Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, may be luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. That the defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new car. That loss of satisfaction would be much more in a case when the person buys the vehicle with his hard-earned money. Unfortunately, we have not developed the tendency of accepting the defects or defaults. By some measure or means, the tendency to accept the defects or defaults is required to be encouraged. Otherwise, delay in disposal of such cases defeats the rights and the consumer gets frustrated. On occasions, litigation is dragged on for taking undue advantage of delay in disposal.”

In the above case, the Hon’ble National Commission held:

“In our opinion, from the admission made by the Petitioner it is clear that the vehicle had gone to them on several occasions for repairs. In our view there is no necessity for a new car to go to the workshop ‘on several occasions’ for repairs within a short span of one year of its purchase.

As stated above, with such a vehicle the consumer would not be satisfied. May be that such defects may occur in one of thousand vehicles but, at the same time, it is the duty of the reputed/established manufacturer to replace such a vehicle.”

18. We are in agreement with the findings in the above case. We also note that the vehicle was purchased on 01-08-2002, Hence the ends of justice will be met if the order of the District Forum is maintained.

19. We see no reason to disagree with the findings of the District Forum.


In the light of the above, Appeal No.20/08 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.


[Sandra Vaz e Correia]


[Caroline Collasso]



  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009

    Ayyanthole , Thrissur

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/126

    M. Madhavan


    1. Padmini Sudheesh
    2. Rajani P.S.
    3. Sasidharan M.S

    1. M. Madhavan

    1. Sitaraman

    1. Shrikumar Nambanath

    1. K. Arunkumar Kaimal

    By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President

    The case of the complainant is as follows:
    The complainant came across with a general offer by the respondent to the effect that Bajaj Platinum, for a price of Rs.3999/-. It was a festive offer to celebrate the 5,00,000 vehicles of Bajaj. Following the general offer in Mathrubhumi daily dated 12th January 2007, the complainant went over to the shop in Patturaikkal junction. The mechanical staff there showed him the vehicle of the choice of the complainant and directed to the respondent while the complainant was with the respondent, the mechanical staff called out the Chasis No. and the Engine No. of the vehicle of the choice of the complainant. The sales staff was drawing out the cash bill, meanwhile the complainant offered Rs.5000/ to the respondent. Meanwhile bill section head informed the net payable to Rs.40,000/- plus or minus. Then the complainant took out the copy of the News paper dated 12/1/07. Then the respondent told the offer in the news paper. It is a gimmick to pass on the vehicle to innocent and gullible buyers and means to attract buyers to the shop. The respondent is not prepared to sell the vehicle for the price notified. The complainant sent a notice to the respondent and received it but with no positive reply. Hence this complaint.

    2.The Counter filed by the respondent states that :
    The complainant misunderstood the notification that the respondent is delivering Bajaj Platina for Rs.3999/-. It is false that the complainant came to the respondent’s show room at Patturaikkal. There is no mechanical staff in the respondent show room and so it is false that the said person called out the chasis No. and Engine No. The complainant is unable to say the actual price of the vehicle as he had not gone there. In the advertisement it is clearly written that conditions apply. The respondent had delivered the said vehicle to those had given the amount written in the notification plus the conditions agreed to pay the balance amount. The complainant did not approach to the respondent show room and did not demand to deliver the said vehicle by showing the notification. Hence dismiss.

    3. Points for consideration are:
    1) Is there any unfair trade practice ?
    2) If so reliefs and costs ?

    4. Evidence : The complainant had produced three documents and marked as Exhibits P1 to P3. The respondent produced 2 documents and marked as Exhibits R1 and R2.

    5. Points : The Exhibit P1 is the Mathrubhumi daily containing the offer stated by the complainant. According to him as per the advertisement he had approached the respondent to purchase the vehicle for Rs.3999/- but it was not delivered by stating it was not the actual price. We have perused the Exhibit P1 daily and can be seen that there is writing of ‘Just pay Rs.3999/-‘ and a picture of Motor cycle is shown. Some other conditions are also seen. According to the complainant he thought that the price of the vehicle was Rs.3999/- because in the advertisement it is written as “just pay Rs.3999/-“. But along with the wordings there is also given a star sign which can be noticed at the time of reading the word ‘just pay Rs.3999/-‘. When such a sign is given usually means some more conditions are remaining. The size of letters are normally same and there is nothing to misunderstand and no unfair trade practice is seen to be committed.

    6. In the result complaint is dismissed.

    Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 19th day of March 2009.

    Padmini Sudheesh

    Rajani P.S.

    Sasidharan M.S
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Surjit Singh son of Shri Uttam Singh, resident of V.P.O. Malak, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana through his attorney Shri Balwant Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.
    1. M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Area Manager/Manager (Service) SCO 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

    2. M/s Dada Motors Ltd. Savitri Complex-II, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana through its Directors/Manager.

    (Opposite parties)

    O R D E R

    1. Complainant purchased one motor cycle manufactured by opposite party no.1 through Canteen Stores Department from opposite party no.2. Since purchase complainant felt problem with the motor cycle, due to leakage of acidic oil from the engine, causing damage to the body of the motor cycle and engine itself. This aspect was brought to notice of opposite party and made complaint. But they failed to rectify the same. Complainant visited the opposite party no.2 on 8.7.2007, 18.8.2007, 24.12.2007, but they failed to remove the defect. Hence, such act on their part claimed amounting to deficiency and negligence in service. Consequently served legal notice dated 3.4.3008 to opposite parties requiring them to replace the defective motor cycle with new one, to which they paid no heed. Hence, for such relief filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with prayer to award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment.

    2. Opposite parties claimed in reply that the complaint is misconceived and filed with malafide intention to cause harassment. Complainant can not take benefit of his own wrongs. He has concealed the material facts of using adulterated fuel/petrol to run his motor cycle. By using such adulterated fuel, he infringed the terms and conditions of the owners/service manual and warranty card. Engine of the motor cycle became rusty as visible to naked eyes, due to use of adulterated fuel/petrol. Complainant after using the motor cycle for more than a year filed the complaint in the year 2008. Though the motor cycle was purchased on 26.6.2007. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, neither any substance like acid or chemical is used in any part of the motor cycle.

    3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties led their evidence byway of affidavits and documents.

    4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

    5. Purchase of motor cycle by the complainant is not in dispute, rather stand admitted. It is also agreed by the opposite party that the complainant when brought the motor cycle to them, its engine was found damaged on account of use of acid. Defence of the opposite party is that acid or any chemical is not part of engine nor used in the engine. Engine consequently got damaged due to use of adulterated fuel by the complainant.

    When the complainant brought that aspect to notice of opposite party, they got the same checked through its service manager, who vide report Ex.R.2 dated 21.8.2007 reported that the damage was due to fuel adulteration. Therefore, the damage was not covered under the warranty. Earlier complainant got the free services of the motor cycle done as apparent from job cards Ex.R.3. But at that time no such complaint qua damage to the engine was reported by the complainant. However, he had reported in August 2007, which report was got investigated by the opposite party through its service manager, who found the damage on account of use of adulterated fuel/petrol.

    6. It is apparent in these circumstances that use of chemical or acid substance in engine of the motor cycle is not component, qua which there is affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Indermohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of opposite party no.2 and that acidic leakage was on account of some oil which caused loss to body of the motor cycle. Under warranty card Ex.R.1 for damage to the vehicle due to use of adulterated or bad quality of fuel manufacturer is absolved from liability.

    7. Unfortunately, damage suffered by the complainant to the motor cycle consequently can not be attributed to any manufacturing defect. Damage was on account of use of adulterated fuel, for which we can not blame the opposite parties. Therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Sri Neelam Jogi Raju, S/o Manikyam, Hindu, aged 43 years, Teacher, R/o Weavers Colony, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam Dist.

    … Complainant


    1. The Manager, Varun Motors, Main Road, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District.

    2. The Area Manager, The Bajaj Auto Limited, 508, Saptahgiri Towers, Hyderabad.

    3. The Dy. General Manager (Service), Service Department, The Bajaj Auto Limited, Akrudi, Pune – 411 035.

    … Opposite Parties

    : O R D E R :

    1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Bajaj Caliber – 115 motor cycle bearing registration No. ADF BLA 2164 in an exchange offer from the 1st opposite party at Yellamanchalli on 10-05-2004. The warranty for repair or replacement at their authorized workshops were given for a period of two years with six free services. He asserts that he availed four free services with 1st opposite party and 5th free service with Varun Motors, Visakhapatnam and 6th free service at Varun Motors, Tuni and again availed paid service at Varun Motors, Narsipatnam. He complains that it was found that the vehicle was not giving expected minimum mileage of 70kms per liter but, gave only 50kms per liter, black smoke coming from silencer of the bike and it is consuming excess engine oil. He pleads that when he approached the Varun motors, Visakhapatnam for engine defects, he was informed by them that engine came to bore.

    It is pleaded that in March 2006, he requested the 1st opposite party to replace the engine, which was refused unjustly on the ground that he did not avail all the six free services at their service station. The problem was brought to their notice within two years warranty period. As there was no proper response, he got issued registered letter seeking replacement of the engine. Ultimately, on 24-04-2006, while he was on his way to his duty place, the bike suddenly stopped at Bus Station, Narsipatnam and so he was forced to handover the vehicle with Varun Motors, Narsipatnam.

    The same was returned to him after attending to repairs and charging Rs.4,402/-. Pleading that total breakdown occurred due to defective engine and inspite of repeated requests it was not replaced and this amounted to deficiency in service, this complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the engine of the bike or alternatively to refund the cost of the bike i.e., Rs.43,100/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of purchase till realization. He also sought for refund of the bill amount of Rs.4,402/- dated 26-04-2006 and damages of Rs.25,000/-.

    2. 1st opposite party filed a counter denying the complaint allegations and pleaded that since by the date of filing of the complaint, on 05-06-2006, the warranty period expired on 10-05-2006, this complaint is not maintainable. The plea of limitation was also raised as a preliminary objection. Another plea is that the vehicle was provided free service to the satisfaction of the complainant and so on the ground of principle of equity also the complaint is not maintainable. There was no cause of action subsisting as on the date of filing of the complaint. On merits it is contended that there is no expert report or opinion as to the condition of the vehicle. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as projected, the vehicle would not have run so far and so long. The complaint is improper and incorrect and a speculative one. The complainant neither proved any defect in the vehicle or deficiency in service.

    Apart form that fuel, average of any automobile vehicle depends on various external factors of age, the opponents do not have any control and there are number of starts and stops of the vehicle, the load carriage on vehicle, road conditions, wheel pressures, purity of fuel, the maintenance of the vehicle, the driving habits of the rider. Simply because the vehicle was not getting the fuel average, assuming it to be correct, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle is defective. For these reasons, the complaint has to be dismissed.

    3. At the time of hearing, both parties filed their respective affidavits and complainant marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and no documents are filed and marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Both the counsels were heard, who reiterated their respective contentions.

    4. In view of the pleadings and contentions put forward the point that would arise for determination in this complaint is

    5. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so to what extent the complainant is entitled for the relief asked for?

    6. As can be seen from the pleadings the main grievance of the complainant is that the motor bike was not giving assured mileage of 70kms per liter and instead giving only 50kms per liter. The 2nd complaint is that black smoke is coming from out of silencer and last complaint is it is consuming excessive engine oil. The bike has been purchased on 10-05-2004. He claimed to have got the six free services done with authorized dealer 1st opposite party and also their branch at Visakhapatnam and Tuni. The warranty was for a period of two years from the date of purchase or 40000 kms of run, which ever event shall occur first. The complainant claimed to have got the vehicle examined at authorized dealer at Visakhapatnam in March 2006, when he was informed that the engine came to bore.

    He claimed to have made request for change of engine as it is within warranty period, but the same was not accepted by them. It is further claimed that the vehicle broke down at Narsipatnam on 24-04-2006 and he handed over the vehicle to Varun Motors, Narsipatnam, who got it repaired in their workshop and he was charged Rs.4,402/-.

    The complainant asserts that the engine coming to the bore within 2 years and emitting black smoke is nothing but manufacturing defect and so the opposite parties are liable to replace the engine and their failure to do so was terms as deficiency in service.

    7. The opposite parties apart from raising the plea of limitation that the complaint is filed after two years limitation of warranty and so not maintainable, raised the plea that the complainant did not maintain the vehicle properly by availing all the free services and the paid services and so the defect, if any, must have been occurred. It is their specific case that the mileage promised depend on various circumstances as to maintenance of the vehicle, usage by the rider, quality of the oil used etc.

    The main plea of the opposite parties is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the contentions that there is a manufacturing defect in engine and without which the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

    8. With regard to the plea of limitation, as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties the complaint was filed on 05-06-2006, while the warranty period expires by 09-05-2006 as the vehicle was purchased on 10-05-2004. But it is to be noted that the demand for rectification of the defect by way of replacement of the defective engine with new engine was made as early as 27-03-2006, as can be seen from Ex.A.3, which was issued by the Narsipatnam Consumer Awareness Society on behalf of the complainant. As can be seen from Ex.A.5, the bunch of courier receipts would show that this notices were issued to the opposite parties. Inspite of specific plea that the notices were sent in March 2006 itself, there is no whisper in the counter on that aspect, which amounted to admission by non denial.

    Though strictly speaking issue of registered notice does not save limitation, we have to note that the cause of action arose in March 2006, when he was claimed to have been informed about the engine condition at Visakhapatnam and the vehicle breakdown in the month of April 2006, well within warranty period the defect, if any was brought to the notice of the opposite parties even by issue of notice and the complaint was filed within three months when the complainant came to know of the so called defect in the engine. So in our view it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by time.

    9. Further what is the evidence placed by the complainant in order to establish is to be seen. When he is claiming that there is a manufacturing defect the complainant must necessarily establish this fact by examining a qualified person. That was what was held by the National Commission in EID Perry (India) Limited Vs. Baby Benjamin Thushra 1992(1) CPJ 279(NC); Dagudu Bhairu Bhosale Vs. Scooter India Ltd., & Another II (2006) CPJ 143 (NC); Ajitha Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Vs. Tata Engineering And Locomotive Co. Ltd., & others I (2007) CPJ 204 (NC) and Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd., & another I (2007) CPJ 2 (NC), relied upon by the counsel for the opposite parties.

    Though, as can be seen from the record the complainant tried to made every effort to examine an automobile engineer and took proper steps. Ultimately he could not do so. Thus the fact remains there is no evidence except bald assertion by the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect, which was naturally denied by the opposite parties and there is absolutely no evidence by an expert to certify this complaint.

    10. Apart from that there is some force in contention of the counsel for the opposite party that all the free services were not with authorized dealer but services provided at Tuni by an another dealer Srinivasa Automobiles and he did not avail paid service facility. Moreover except, in April 2006 when the vehicle was said to have been broke down, in effecting repairs some spare parts are used as can be seen from Ex.A.4 bill, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the vehicle underwent repair necessitating replacement of any spare parts. Ex.A.2 bill dated 21-03-2006 would show that only oils were changed and no spare parts were used at all.

    In addition to it Ex.A.1 service coupon would not show that at any point of time there was any complaint as to the low mileage or either of the defects pleaded. So it is quite evident that earlier there is absolutely no complaint as to the condition of the vehicle as many as six free services were got done.

    As rightly pleaded by the opposite parties just within one month completion of the warranty period the complainant made this complaint of manufacturing defect in the vehicle having used it for nearly two years. In these circumstances we hold that the complainant failed to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which requires replacement of engine and failure to do so by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, though the complaint is in time.

    Consequently he is not entitled for any relief asked for? Though the opposite parties pleaded for awarding exemplary costs, as already observed, the complainant made every effort to examine an expert to establish his case that there is manufacturing defect. It is different matter that ultimately he failed to adduce any evidence. Such being the case, the question of awarding exemplary costs would not arise. Accordingly this point is answered.

    11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case each party is directed to bear their own costs. Advocate fee Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)
  • edited October 2009
    my pulsar CK 8382 number bile's cylincer damaged within very short time. I think they do not provide me proper material. so they should give me another one.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.No.1444/2007 against C.C.No.228/2005, Dist.Forum, West Godavari , Eluru.
    Somisetty Venkata Balakrishna ,

    S/o. Late Venkata Swamy,

    Hindu, aged about 37 years, Business,


    Eastern Street, Eluru. …Appellant/



    1.The Vijaya Vasava Motors,

    Rep. by its Manager, N.R.Pet,


    2.Regional Office,

    Area Service Manager,

    Bajaj Auto Ltd., 401,

    Saptagiri Towers,


    S.P.Road, Begumpet,

    Hyderabad – 500 016. …Respondents/


    Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.Gowrisankara Rao

    Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu-R1






    Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
    Aggrieved by the order dt.30.1.2006 in C.C.No.228/2005 on the file of District Forum , West Godavari , Eluru , the complainant preferred this appeal.

    The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Bajaj Saffire Scooter from the opposite party no.1 on 20.1.2001 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- and it was delivered to him on the same day itself. The vehicle functioned well upto three services and later it started giving some mechanical trouble i.e. the ‘self starter’ stopped functioning in a proper manner and when the said trouble was complained to the first opposite party they could not rectify the defect and in turn stated that there was some technical defect and the same was intimated to the second opposite party who have deputed one technical engineer, but he also could not rectify it and finally he stated that there was some manufacturing defect in the said vehicle itself. As there was no response from the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 23.8.2003 for which the opposite parties did not give any reply and also did not choose to rectify the defects in the vehicle. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the said defective vehicle with a new one or to repay the entire sale amount to the complainant and to award Rs.5000/- towards damages and to award costs.

    The first opposite party filed version contending that the complainant never brought the vehicle to their service center and never utilized the coupon services provided by the Company and he never made any complaint with regard to the defect in the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by the complainant and his brother without observing the precautions given by the company in its manual. The opposite party company offers warranty on the vehicle for a period of 12 months or 12000 k.m. whichever occurs first . The company is not liable if the 3 coupon services plus one paid service as given in the owner’s manual have not been carried out and the warranty given by the company is not applicable to the cases where the vehicles which are not being serviced by the Bajaj Auto’s authorized Bajaj vehicle dealers and selected authorized center as per the service schedule described in the 3 coupon services plus one paid service issued to the customer. The opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
    Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 the District Forum dismissed the complaint .
    Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.

    The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Saffire Scooter from the first opposite party on 20.1.2001 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle functioned well upto three services and later mechanical trouble started in the vehicle and the first opposite party’s staff could not rectify the defect and the second opposite party deputed their engineer who also could not rectify the defect. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that Ex.A1 showed the first service report of the vehicle which was done by the opposite party and this service was done on 28.2.2001 at 560 kms , second service was admittedly done on 27.4.2001 at 1437 kms. and third service was done on 20.6.2001 at 2096 kms. The service coupons does not contain the stamp of the opposite party. It is the further case of the complainant that there was mechanical trouble in the ‘self starter’ and the technician of the opposite party who checked the vehicle informed him that there was technical defect. It is the case of the respondents/opposite parties that the complainant did not get the vehicle for service. The respondent/opposite party contend that the warranty period is only for one year and the complainant did not prove any manufacturing defect by way of any expert opinion. On careful perusal of the exhibits filed by the appellant/complainant, we observe that Ex.A1 is only the owner’s manual and service coupons and Ex.A2 is xerox copy of the certificate of registration and Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice, but not a single job card is filed to state exactly what the nature of defect is and if defect exists, as to whether it is rectifiable or not. The complainant also failed to establish by way of any expert opinion that his vehicle suffers from defects and the extent of defects and if the defects are manufacturing defects or not . Hence in the absence of any evidence on record to establish the case of the complainant, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent/opposite party.

    In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Consumer Complaint No: 445/2008


    Rananna Rajubabu, S/o Prakasam Hindu, aged 45 years, New Block 2/14, Kailasagiri Police Quarters, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam-24. … Complainant


    1. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, 1st Floor, D.No.49-24-62, Near Coastal Hardware, Sankaramattam Road, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

    2. The Manager, 1st floor, D.No.50-10-22/1, C/o Varun Motors “Varshad” Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
    … Opposite Parties

    This case is coming on for final hearing on 3-12-2009 in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.P.Siva Sankar Rao Advocate for the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.
    : O R D E R :
    (As per the Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

    1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP31 AL 3629 on finance vide loan agreement No.408/17764 dated 10-10-2005 from M/s. Bajaj Auto fiancé Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager and manager respectively, at Visakhapatnam. The finance received is Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) payable in 36 monthly installments at Rs.1,935/- (Rupees one thousand and nine hundred and thirty five only) each. According to the complainant, even though he was regular in payments, the vehicle was seized along with Long and Horn remote fixed to it and though subsequently the vehicle was released by the opposite party on payment, the opposite party did not return the C-Book, lock and Horn remote clearance certificate. He, therefore, placed the complaint with the Forum and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs and damages and to direct the opposite party to return the C-Book and clearance certificate and such other reliefs as the Forum deems fit.

    2. The complainant’s submission is that after taking finance, the first installment started since 7-11-2005 through the salary in Andhra Bank, A.U campus. On his transfer to Vizianagaram, the account in Andhra Bank seized to operate. Only on knowing that the installments could not be remitted he then paid three advance installments and cleared the outstanding also vide receipt Nos.13,14,15 and 34,35,36. According to the complainant, the statement submitted by the opposite party showing outstanding for the months of November and December 2006 and January 2007 was wrong and the opposite parties refused to give back the ‘C’ Book, lock and clearance certificate and further demanded to pay Rs.2,850/- (Rupees two thousand and eight hundred and fifty only) as additional. Attributing harassment by the opposite parties for the default which is due to no fault on him and also due to refusal to return the ‘C’ book and clearance certificate etc., the complainant demanded compensation and costs. The complainant submitted written arguments and proof affidavits substantiating the reasons for non-payment of the earlier installments. In support of his submission the complaint filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

    3. The opposite parties in their affidavit and counter vehemently denied the contents of the complaint and submitted the installments 13,14 and 15 were not paid in time and also in terms of agreement and default clause there in. He still has to pay Rs.2,386/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and eighty six only) as penalty after due adjustments. Thus happened in spite of their best efforts explaining the provisions for against which will operate due to such default. Hence they are justified in demanding Rs.2,386/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and eighty six only) towards the penalty charges. They also denied having ‘C’ book, lock Horn remote and clearance certificate of the complainant in respect of their contentions, the opposite parties submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B2, in support of this.

    4. Now, the issue to be decided is:

    Whether the complaint is justified in making the demand for payment of compensation and damages towards mental agony besides costs and to return the ‘C’ book, lock and clearance certificate.

    5. The Forum after careful examination of the contents and respective written arguments and proof affidavits of both the parties, is of the opinion that whatever may be the reason given by the complainant it was an established fact that the three installments 13,14,15 for which advances cheques were issued were not paid in time as admitted by the complainant himself. The opposite parties are therefore justified in making demand for penalty charges of Rs.2,386/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and eighty six only) which is after due adjustments. At the same time in regard to the complainant’s plea that he has not received back Horn Remote and Speaker costing around Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), the complainant did not substantiate it in the form of cash receipt for the material. Hence the demand for return of these items cannot be taken as granted by the Forum. However, the ‘C’ book and clearance certificate are the vital documents to be released by the opposite parties and they are supposed to return the same subject to clearance of the penalty charges.

    6. The opposite parties merely said in their affidavit that the No Objection Certificate for the hypothetic termination etc. were kept ready but the complainant did not choose to take the same in time. In the circumstances after analyzing overall aspects of the complaint and respective arguments presented by both the parties duly supported by proof affidavits and written arguments, the Forum is of the view that there is a default by the opposite party in not delivering back the ‘C’ book and No Objection Certificate to the complainant, it is justified to consider the demand for mental agony and damages by the complainant. Hence the Forum is of the view that the opposite parties shall return the ‘C’ book and issue of No Objection Certificate after due receipt of the balance payable by the complainant i.e Rs.2,386/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and eighty six only) and the opposite parties shall also have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation with costs at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

    7. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and to return the ‘C’ book and clearance certificate to the complainant along with costs at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

    Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 8th Day of December, 2009.
  • sathyanovasathyanova Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    i am sathya nova, i purchased pulsar 150 cc bike in bajaj ram auto dindigul,tamilnadu in may 2011. but this bike have a oil leakage problem in engine. the show room was cheat me.and i have one year warranty. so i give the bike for the show room in this problem in 10 times. But the show room not solve this problen and do not take any actions........ and every one should not borrow about this problem...
    my bike chasis number: mdzdhdhzzuca03265
    engine number :dhgbua 85177 my phone number:9790083802 pls help me to solve the problem...
  • titu19augtitu19aug Junior Member
    edited March 2012
    I have Bajaj XCD 135. I purchased this on Nov 2010 , I love this bike. i feel good when i ride it. Really this is a nice bike. But ....... On 17 Dec 2011, I lost its main stand pin. so without stand pin it is not standing properly. I am from Muzaffar Nagar (main city) and there are two bajaj Agency : 1. Bansal Motors, Meerut Road, Sujru Chungi, Muzaffarnagar- 251003 2. Rajdhani Auto Agency, Roorkee Road, Saharanpur Bus Stand, Near maya Palace, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) I have gone many, many time to both agency (Bansal Motors and Rajdhani Auto Agency) but always they say to me "Not Available", "Not Available", "Not Available" . What is the F*** with Bajaj auto spare parts. what i do for my "Main stand Pin".
  • edited February 2013
    Hi, I am Kunal Dodiya, 9821901704, I have a Pulsar 220, Recently Purchased before 4 months, i mate an accident, so i submitted it in a Bajaj's Authorized service Center "Mejesty Motors" In Kandivali West, Mumbai 400067, Nirav is In-charge there 9029895205, i gave him my bike on 16-1-2013, to get it fixed, till now i am waiting for my bike, because its silencer is not available any where, he promised me if i will pay the complete amount of damage that is 30000/- he will return my bike in 3 working days any how, i made payment in 2 days only but still i am running around for my bike, this is not enough once i was on work and i send my father and my Uncle to check the status of my bike so the in-charge said i can make your bike stand here for 2 months without any reasons its in my hands no body can stops me but i am trying to make it, is this called service??? i am a consumer he should know these? this is not a service, even i am working for service industry only i know how we can give a Dent to a business. i really lost my passions its nearly 1 month now, i bought my bike for my comfort and convenient but its totally opposite its a pain for me now, every day i should call him and check the status every day i should call Baja's Spare Part department to check weather the parts are available or not, i just need to take action against Bajaj and Specially Against Nirav because he said I can make your bike stand here for 2 months without any reasons, he should know his responsibility and he should know how to speak with Customers, now i will ask him with the help of media how he can make my bike stand there without any reasons for 2 months.My Bike No. is Mh-02 Cx 4950, I Will Not Accept My Bike They Will Deliver after 12-2-2013, I am Seek of it now, Just Burn that Bike Their Only if It Will Be Delayed.
    So please Do the needful i am Waiting for the replay, If you wants to call me then Please call me after 6.30 P.m because i used to be in office and i can not pickup calls in my working Hrs.

    Kunal Dodiya
  • edited January 2014
    sip my father Abhaya jena bought a discover 100 4g on the date of 23.04.2013 and my bike number is od05c9124 and my 3free servishing is over but my chain problem is not ok now my phone no 9124624301
Sign In or Register to comment.