BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.204 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.143 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA AT KRISHNA DISTRICT
Between:
The Manager
Eicher Motors Limited
102, Industrial Area No.1 Pithampur
Madhya Pradesh
A N D
1. Chaitanya Educational Society
Chaitanya Public School, rep. R/o Kaligiri (Village & Mandal)
2. Ramcor Motors Ltd., rep. by its Manager
D.No.33-21-33, Seetharampuram
Eluru Road, Vijayawada
3. Hitech Motors
NH-5, Golden Quadralateral
Kakutur Village, Nellore District
Respondents/opposite parties No.2&3
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1.
2. `7,35,659/-. The appellant furnished warranty on the bus for a period of three years. The first respondent observed some defects in the bus on the day of its purchase and informed the second respondent which advised the first respondent to approach the third respondent and the third respondent attended the repairs. Subsequently, the first respondent school found some other defects in the bus and handed over the bus to the second respondent for effecting repairs. After two days, the defects visited the bus again.
3.
4. The vehicle is used for commercial purpose. It is contended that the first respondent is not the actual owner of the vehicle and it is M/s Cholamandalam Finance which is the owner of the vehicle and as such in absence of the actual owner of the vehicle as a party,
5.
6.
7. Frequent applying of the brakes to the vehicle because of bad road condition affect the tyre life and other components. As per the norms of the Manual the first service should have been done after the vehicle had run 5,000 kms and thereafter for every 10,000 kms. The first respondent did not get the vehicle for servicing as per the norms. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. appellant `7,35,659/- are beyond any dispute. The first respondent stated that on
13.
14.
For 5000 kms. Service, they have brought the vehicle at 5564 kms and delayed by 564 kms.
For 15000 kms. Service they have brought the vehicle at 15610 kms and delayed by 610 kms.
For 25000 kms service they have brought the vehicle at 26921 kms and delayed by 1921 kms
For 35000 kms service they have brought the vehicle at 33540 kms within time
For 45000 kms service they have brought the vheicleat 46358 and delayed 1358 kms
For 55000 kms service they have brought the vehicle at 58650 kms and delayed by 2650 kms
For 65000 kms service they have brought the vheiclea t 74742 kms and delayed by 9742 kms
For 75000 kms service for 85000 kms service for 95000 servcie, for 1,05,000 kms service they have not brought the vehicle for general service.
The complainant put the vehile after plying 1,12,336/- kms for general service on 10.05.2011 which was plied for about 37594 kms after the previous service.
These irregular servicing are the reasons may develop defects in the vehicle.
15.
1.Fuel tank gauge unit replaced.
16. `659/-.Job Card dated 14.09.2007 indicates replacement of certain spare parts and change of engine oil. As seen from the job card dated 10.11.2007, the third respondent replaced MOC,Drag link assembly and Fuel Tank Gauge Unit. Thereafter, on 24.11.2007 the following spare parts were replaced:
17. `50/- from the first respondent. The job card dated 6.10.2008 would show replacement of the following spare parts:
18.
· Normal ageing, deterioration or rusting of plated parts, pain coat, rubber parts, upholstery, plastic parts, soft trim etc.
· Parts replaced as a result of normal wear & tear such as bulbs, fuses motor brushes, clutch facing, brake lining, fuel filter, oil filter, etc.
· Normal periodic replacement parts and routine maintenance services such as Oil Seals, Repair Kits Shims etc.
· Damage due to lack of proper maintenance as described in the owner’s handbook.
· Damage due to use of parts other than EICHER genuine parts etc.
19.
“various documents show that the appellant/opposite party had indicted that downing of the engine was necessary to trace the problem. There was no agreement to replace the engine system. But when the appellant/opposite party asked the vehicle to be brought for the said purpose, respondent/complainant did not do so.
20.
1. The vehicle travelled 1,12,336 KM as on 10.05.2011 from the date of purchase i.e., 07.07.2007.
2. There are no manufacturing defects observed by the technicians of the opposite eparties on thorough inspection of the vehicle.
3. Engine condition is perfect
4. The body and other parties of the vehicle are in good condition
5. The other parts overall condition of the vehicle is good and satisfactory.
6. The third opposite party attended to the general service of the vehicle at the request of the complainant and charged to the said service as the vehicle was played for about 37594 kms after the previous service.
7. The lubricants are replaced with fresh lubricants on charge by the 3rd
8. The opposite party no.3 attended reparis for front suspension of the vehicle and the repair si due to ntural wear and tear and due to plying of the vehicle for 1,12,330 kms.
21.
22.
23.
“Even in the case of manufacturing defect of a vehicle, the vehicle in toto cannot be ordered to be replaced in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs Susheel Kumar Gabtora reported in AIR 2006 SCC 1586 wherein the Supreme Court opined that warranty condition referred only to the replacement of the defective part and not of the car. In another case, the Hon’ble National Commission held in M/s TELCO Ltd., another Vs. M.Moosa, 1986-94 page 1367 (NS) that the section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act authorizes the forum to have the defects removed even if there are numerous defects which can be rectified and that it will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we do not find the respondent entitled to the replacement of motor cycle or refund of its cost”
24.
“The first appellant during the first servicing of the vehicle replaced parts charging Rs.1079/- and waived the amount as goodwill gesture.
1. If all free services/paid services/oil top-ups are not availed from the authorized Hero Honda workshops.
2. If Hero Honda recommended engine oil SAE-10W 30 SJ Grade (JASO MA) is not used.
3. To normal wear and tear components including but not limited to) brake shows, clutch shoes, bulbs, electrical wiring, filter, spark plug, fasteners, shims, washer, oil seals, gaskets, rubber parts, bush rubber bellows, plastic parts breakage and wheel rim for misalignment bend.
4. If additional wheel(s) is are fitted and/or any other modification carried out/accessories fitted other than the ones recommended by Hero Honda
5. If Super Splendor motorcycle has been sued in any competitive events like races or rallies or for any commercial purposes as taxi etc.
6. To any damage on motorcycle’s painted surface cropping due to industrial pollution or other external factors.
7. For normal phenomenon like noise, vibration, oil seepage etc., which do not affect the performance of the Motorcycle.
8. To any damage caused due to usage of improper oil/grease, non-genuine parts.
9. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result fo using adulterated fuel.
10. If any maintenance/repairs required due to bad road conditions or misuses of Super Splendor motorcycle.
11. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result of Super Splendor Motorcycle meeting to some accident.
12. For consumables like oil, grease, gasket etc., to be used during free services and/or warranty repairs..
13. To any part of Super Splendor motorcycle which has been tampered or got repaired at unauthorized outlet.
14. For Super Splendor motorcycle not used in accordance with the guidelines given in the owner’s manual.
16. In terms of “warranty” it is mandatory for the first respondent to avail all the free services as per the recommended schedule.
25.
26. `5,000/- to the first respondent towards compensation.
కె.ఎం.కె*
