BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A., MEMBER.
Thursday, 6th November 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 23/ 2014
Smt. Kalluru Jayamma, W/o K. Ramana Reddy,
aged 50 years, Hindu, Kapu under husband’s protection,
Residing at D.No. 1/103, Ramanapalle Village,
Chennur Mandal, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The authorized dealer, Sri Gopal Auto Stores,
Residing at # 1/335-336, Maruthi Nagar,
Kadapa city, YSR District.
2. The Manager, Hero Moto Corporation Limited,
Residing at 3-6-475/3B1, 1st floor,
Kalpa Vruksha Estate, Himayat Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 029, Andhra Pradesh. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 30-10-2014 in the presence of Sri G.B. Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Venu Gopal , Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 91,805/- towards cost of bike including damages jointly and severally with interest @ 12% p.a. from 30-9-2013 i.e. date of purchase of bike till realization and costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased new passion X pro bike for Rs. 51,805/- from Opposite party No. 1 on 30-9-2013 with five years warranty. The same was purchased for the use of her son Ganesh Kumar Reddy. The bike was purchased after verifying bike features especially about chain packet by Ganesh Kumar Reddy, because he had already faced such problem in Bajaj Motor bike. After few days the bike was not functioning and gave trouble in chain packet and complainant’s son approached Opposite party No. 1, who adjusted the chain packet but within 24 hours again same problem arose and opposite party No. 1 adjusted the same at the time of first and second services. On the next day also the problem was repeated and opposite party No. 1 adjusted the same and finally on 13-12-2013 opposite party No. 1 replaced the chain packet at 3,500 Kms. with warranty. Generally chain packet will be changed after running 50,000 Kms but opposite party No. 1 changed the same within short time. The complainant’s son telephoned to Hero Moto Corporation Ltd., at Delhi and they said that the chain packet was not properly fitted or any defect may be in the bike engine. Again the same problem arose and opposite party No. 1 adjusted eight times but still the problem is existing. When approached Opposite party No. 1 says that the bike is manufacturing defect and there is no permanent solution in this regard. So the complainant’s son gave online complaint to Opposite party No. 2 website apprising the problem and for permanent solution. But opposite party No. 2 did not reply. Complainant’s son who studied degree knows the manual rules of driving of the vehicle, he has valid driving license. The complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties 1 & 2 on 10-3-2014 and they give reply with all false allegations on 14-3-2014. The opposite parties caused mental tension to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. Hence, complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common counter they denied all the allegations in the complaint regarding deficiency of service and manufacturing defect of the bike by the company, though they admitted the purchase of motor bike by the complainant. It is further contended on all the days whenever, the complainant’s son came with chain problem the opposite party No. 1 attended with free services to the satisfaction of the complainant’s son and he gave satisfaction letters on all days and finally on 13-12-2013 they replaced chain packet. The complainant’s son got first service on 10-10-2013, 2nd service on 5-12-2013 and when they replaced the chain packet with warranty on 13-12-2013 and complainant’s son gave satisfaction letter about the services and he was happy with replacement of new chain packet. At that time it was advised to complainant’s son not drive the vehicle with rash and high speed. The complainant’s son gave bike for 3rd service on 6-2-2014 after completion of 6,499 Kms and satisfied with free service of costs of opposite party No. 1. Even, after giving legal notice on 01-2-2014 but he changed the date of legal notice as 10-3-2014 instead of 01-2-2014. The opposite parties gave proper reply on 14-3-2014 to the legal notice stating that they are ready to provide good free services within warranty period as per owner’s manual. Even today they are ready to change chain packet once again to give an opportunity to the complainant. Thereafter also on 7-4-2014 free service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant’s son, though filed this complaint on 26-3-2014 in S.R. No. 195/2014 which was subsequently numbered as C.C. No. 23/2014. The fifth service was done on 21-5-2014 after filing of this complaint and got changed engine oil, bulb, battery charging, alignment and Nitrogen filling with free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant’s son and complainant signed in job card as satisfied and admitted there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties but the complainant filed this complaint to get wrongful gain with malafide intention. Opposite party No. 1 was authorized dealer of the reputed Hero Moto Corporation Ltd., which is National vide company and taking all necessary measures in maintaining of their products. The claim of the complainant is unjust and baseless and unwarranted. The complainant’s son already faced chain packet problem while maintaining Bajaj Motor Bike due to lack of sufficient driving skills. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by either party. On behalf of the complainant Exhibits A1 to A8 documents are marked and on behalf of the Opposite parties Exhibits B1 & B2 documents are marked by consent.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2 it is the case of complainant that she purchased motor cycle New Passion X Pro bike for Rs. 51,805/- from Opposite party No. 1 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 on 30-9-2013 with five years warranty. But the two wheeler gave trouble after running 3,500 Kms in chain packet and thereafter he approached opposite party No. 1 and got free services five times including replacement of chain packet. But still the motor bike gave trouble and caused mental agony to the complainant, therefore, filed complaint for repayment of cost of the bike and also Rs. 40,000/- towards mental strain. On the other hand it is the case of opposite parties that the opposite party No. 2 company is very reputed company and there was no manufacturing defect to the vehicle sold to complainant and due to rash and unskilled driving of complainant’s son by name Ganesh Kumar Reddy, the trouble arose in the chain packet and the same was replaced on 13-12-2013 and assured to do services, whenever, required and in fact even after filing of this complaint the complainant’s son came for services and in total five services are held in warranty period at free of costs and no negligence or deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties.
8. In view of rival contentions above it is clear that the complainant purchased motor cycle under Ex. A1 invoice on 30-9-2013 from opposite party No. 1, who is authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 company and the motor bike has five years warranty as per owner’s manual. As seen from records and pleadings of complainant by 13-12-2013 the complainant’s son by name K. Ganesh Kumar Reddy, who is the rider of motor cycle has driven the same for distance of 3,500 Kms and got replaced the chain packet, stating that the motor cycle giving trouble in functioning regarding chain packet. Prior to that also he got free services as per warranty of the owner’s manual under Exhibits A2, A3 and A4 and even after filing of this complaint he got free service on 7-4-2014 as per Ex. A5. The only grievance of the complainant is even after replace of chain packet the motor bike is giving trouble. So the complainant wants for refund of the costs of the motor bike with compensatory amount for mental agony.
9. It is specific case of opposite parties that the opposite party No. 1 has done free services including replacement of chain packet five times and trouble to the vehicle arose only due to rash and negligence and unskilled driving of complainant’s son. The opposite parties filed Exhibits B1 & B2 in support of their case to show that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on their part. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 company is reputed one in manufacturing two wheelers. As seen from Ex. B2 job card filed by opposite parties that the complainant’s son acknowledged that services were done satisfactorily by opposite party No. 1, whenever the bike was given for service. Even after filing of the complaint the complainant’s son got free service on 7-4-2014 and gave satisfaction letter to opposite party No. 1 showroom, which means whenever, the bike of complainant was placed for services in opposite party No.1 showroom, Opposite party No. 1 attended the service work to the satisfaction of complainant’ son. So under any stretch imagination it cannot be said that there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties either in attending the repair works of bike or free services of the same during warranty period. The satisfaction of the services by opposite party No. 1 was even acknowledged by complainant’s son K. Ganesh kumar Reddy. There is no material placed by the complainant to show there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Even, though the complainant issued legal notice on 10-3-2014 under Ex. A6 but a suitable reply was given by opposite parties under Ex. A7 denying the deficiency and defect in manufacturing of the product. Opposite parties stated in their reply notice Ex. A7 that they prepared even to do services, whenever required during warranty period including change of chain packet as per manual, as such we hold that there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle, negligence in doing services or deficiency in service by opposite parties 1 & 2. However, in view of the clear admission by opposite parties that they are willing to replace the chain packet if gives trouble we hold the opposite parties are directed to replace the chain packet to the vehicle purchased by the complainant within warranty period as per owner’s manual, besides doing free services if remained. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for cost of the bike and for mental agony as claimed. Accordingly, the points 1 & 2 are answered.
10. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed but with a direction to the opposite parties to replace the chain packet to the bike of the complainant, if gives trouble within warranty period as per owner’s manual. Accordingly the complaint is disposed of, no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 6th November 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Cash bill payment dt. 30-9-2013 issued by O.P. 1 in favour of complainant.
Ex. A2 Bill dt. 10-10-2013 for Rs. 339/- issued by O.P.1.
Ex. A3 Bill dt. 5-12-2013 for Rs. 200/- issued by O.P. No.1.
Ex. A4 Bill dt. 13-12-2013 issued by O.P.1 for changing the chain packet.
Ex. A5 Bill dt. 6-2-2014 for Rs. 308/- issued by O.P.1.
Ex. A6 Office copy of legal notice dt. 10-3-2014.
Ex. A7 Reply notice dt. 14-3-2014.
Ex. A8 Two postal acknowledgements.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties: -
Ex. B1 Documents of FSCI to FSC V vehicle service history cards.
Ex. B2 Job card free service card I to free service card V job cards satisfaction of complainant son.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G.B. Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri K. Venu Gopal, Advocate for Opposite parties
B.V.P. - - -
