BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 23rd August 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 29 / 2013
1. Smt. Karotla Eswaramma, W/o K. Ravi, Hindu,
aged about 25 years, House wife,
Residing at D.No. 3/185-3A, Akkayapalli,
Kadapa City. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd.,
Village Kherki, Badshahapur, N.H.8 Link Road,
Gurgaon (Haryana), Rep. by its
Manager / in charge officer.
2. M/s Khwaja Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer,
Suzuki Motor Cycles, Madras Road, D.No. 7/12,
Chinna Chowk, Kadapa city, Rep. by its
Manager / in charge officer. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 22-8-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri S. Nazeer Basha, Advocate for O.P.1 & 2 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay Rs. 62,000/- being the amount charged for the complainant together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase viz., 19-12-2012 till the date of realization.
(b) To pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties being the damages towards mental agony.
(c) To pay Rs. 1,500/- towards cost of this complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that, the complainant purchased a two wheeler HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START (Black) bearing chasis No.MB8NF4JAHC8123937 and Engine No. F4E6-123791 from the O.P.2, manufactured by the O.P.1 on 19-12-2012, she handed over her Splendor NXG to the showroom of O.P.2 on exchange price of Rs. 20,500/- and remaining amount down payment of Rs. 25,355/- is arranged by IndusInd Bank, Kadapa total cost of the motor cycle is Rs. 62,000/-. As per the advice of the O.P.2 within the statutory period the said motor cycle she handed over the O.P.2 for first service for change of oil and other repairs etc., The O.P.2 repaired the said motor cycle and handed over to the complainant. After 3 days she noticed fault or mechanical or technical defect or trouble in the motor cycle. The said motor cycle is not working properly and the clutch plates and other gear problems. Again she handed over to the O.P.2 the O.P.2 advised her to meet after 3 days for actual information defect of the motor cycle on the ground that the company engineer would visit showroom of O.P.2 in a short period. As per advice of the O.P.2 she met O.P.2 after 3 days and the O.P. 2 handed over the motorcycle to the complainant without properly rectifying the said problem or defects in the motorcycle and the motor cycle worked only for 3 days and again started trouble with same or similar problems. Again she handed over the said motor cycle to O.P.2 and O.P.2 advised her to meet after 3 days and she met the O.P.2 after 3 days and handed over the motorcycle to the complainant stating that changed of entire machine of the engine in motorcycle. But still the said defects were not rectified, the said motor cycle worked only 5 days. Even the company engineer also could not rectify the defects. Immediately, she handed over the said motor cycle to O.P.2 along with service book and the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 28-2-2013 to the O.P’s through her advocate which was received by the O.P.2 but so far the O.P.’s neither complied the demands nor gave any reply. Hence, the complaint.
3. The Opposite parties filed joint counter and admitted that the complainant purchased HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START (Black) bearing chasis No. MB8NF4JAHC8123937 and Engine No. F4E6-123791 from the O.P.2 on 19-12-2012 and also admitted that the O.P.2 got the vehicle from the complainant for general service and for changing oil accordingly first service on 30-01-2013 and on the same day the O.P.2 handed over the vehicle to the complainant. Till then neither the complainant nor the O.P.2 noticed or observed any sort of problem in the vehicle.
4. The Opposite parties further stated that the complainant is the lady and she don’t know how to ride the vehicle and does not have a driving license and also she does not know about the vehicle. But her husband, who is working as a mason and working throughout the district and he know about the number of models as well as the different types of the vehicles make companies and also stated that the O.P.2 came to know that the husband of the complainant use to ride the above said vehicle triple seated and that to on ghat section especially on Guvvalacheruvu ghat, which is situated between Kadapa – Rayachoty. The husband of the complainant wants to get another vehicle so for that he wants to get ride of the vehicle that intention causes to file this case.
5. The O.P. further stated that the complainant mentioned in the job card “just three days of the service the complainant noticed is fault of mechanical defect or trouble in the motor cycle i.e. the motor cycle is not working properly and clutch plates and other gear problem or problematically noticed and handed over again to the showroom of O.P.2” and it is also false to state that the complainant handed over the vehicle to O.P.2. The complainant would have been received the job card which mentioned the problem of the complaint to rectify. The complainant not handed over the vehicle nor job card just after three days of the first service of the vehicle dt. 30-01-2013 and the complainant falsely stated that “the O.P.2 informed the complainant to meet the O.P.2, after three days to inform actual defect of the motor cycle that on the ground the company engineer would visit showroom in a short period” and also false that the complainant met the O.P.2 and get the vehicle from the showroom after 3 days without rectifying the problem of the motor cycle.
6. The O.P. further contended that the complainant stating that the motor cycle worked only for three days and again started trouble with the same or similar problems. It is also false that the complainant handed over the vehicle to O.P. 2 on 12-2-2013 for the purpose of clutch problem and vehicle suddenly stopping. The supervisor of the O.P.2 advised the vehicle concern mechanic change of the clutch plates. As per the terms and conditions of the O.P.’s vehicle manual there is no warranty or guaranty for clutch plates. Even, though the O.P.2 changed the clutch plates without any cost on the basis of their policy “satisfaction of the customer is their motto”, but the complainant not satisfied and she also stated that the O.P.2 informed to the complainant that the O.P.2 has changed entire machine or engine in motor cycle and handed over the vehicle to the complainant. If entire machine or engine changed in the vehicle it has to be informed to the concerned R.T.O authorities according to law and also contended that the complainant has strong intention to obtain other motor cycle or other company make motor cycle owing to that the complainant immediately handed over the motor cycle along with service book to O.P.2 and blaming the O.P’s were not rectified any fault or mechanical or technical defect or trouble in the motor cycle and handed over the vehicle to her without any rectification. The complainant stated that, she handed over the vehicle five times to O.P.2 but the complainant has 2 job cards one for first service contains oil changing bearing No. 1254, dt. 30-01-2013 and general service. Another job card No. 1413, dt. 12-2-2013 for changing of clutch plates only. It is also contending that the clutch problem arise only due to rough handling or misuse of the vehicle and the complainant herself noticed and decided that there are troubles in vehicle and not made any checkup by the any authorities Engineer or mechanic pertaining the problems of the said vehicle. The sudden stoppage of the vehicle arises only on improper gearing or improper clutch raising only. When improper releasing the clutch liver damages the clutch plates for the damages of the clutch plates the O.P’s are not responsible according to their terms and conditions and also contending that according to the HAYATE Owner’s manual page No. 10 - 3 under the limitations of the warranty and sub heading warranty is not applicable clearly mentioned that the normal service wear and tear items fasteners, drive chain sprockets, clutch plates, race baring kit, gaskets, rubber parts all plastic components, wheel rims, element air cleaner, oil filter and electrical items like bulb. The O.P’s are not liable for misusing the motor cycle pertaining this clearly mentioned in the manual page No. 10 - 4 that parts of the motor cycle have been subjected to misuse accident and negligent treatment use of bad quality parts which are not manufactured or not recommended for use by SMIPL on their motor cycles used for any competition i.e. rallies or races. If it is used for any commercial purpose like hiring etc., SMIPL undertakes no liability in the matter of any consequential loss or damage caused due to failure of the parts. The O.P’s further contended that the complainant purchased the above said vehicle on 19-12-2012 i.e. end of the year and it is implies to model of the vehicle also. The complainant sent a legal notice through her advocate on 28-2-2013 which contains number of false allegations and filed a case. The O.P.2 made number of calls to the complainant to take the vehicle back which free of defect previous to the legal notice issued by the complainant. The complainant to obtain her wrongful gain she harassed O.P’s even though her vehicle is ready, as when she can take delivery and also trying to decreased the good will of the O.P. 1 & 2. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P’s and prayed to dismiss the complaint and directing the complainant to pay Rs. 25,000/- to each O.P’s towards mental agony and to pay Rs. 50,000/- to each O.P’s towards good will and damaging the reputation to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the legal process.
7. To prove her case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents which are marked Ex. A1 to A8 and on behalf of the O.P’s filed counter along with documents are marked as Ex. B1 to B3.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
iii. To what relief?
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that she purchased a two wheeler HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START (Black) bearing chasis No.MB8NF4JAHC8123937 and Engine No. F4E6-123791 from the O.P.2, manufactured by the O.P.1 on 19-12-2012 with cost of Rs. 62,000/-. The complainant handed over the motor cycle within the statutory period for the first service for change of oil and general service etc., and the O.P.2 repaired the said vehicle and handed over to the complainant. After three days she noticed that the said vehicle is not working properly and the clutch plates and other gear problems. Again she handed over the vehicle to O.P.2 and O.P. 2 advised her to meet after three days for actual information defect of the motorcycle on the ground that the company engineer would visit the showroom of the O.P.2 in a short period. As per the advice of the O.P.2 she met O.P.2 after three days and the O.P. 2 handed over the motorcycle to the complainant without properly rectifying the said problems or defects in the motorcycle and the motorcycle worked only for three days, again started troubles with same or similar problems. Again she handed over the said vehicle to O.P.2. After three days the O.P. 2 handed over the vehicle to the complainant, stating that change of entire machine of the engine in motor cycle. After changing of engine the problem was not solved. The company engineer also could not rectify the defects and immediately she handed over the motor cycle to O.P. 2 along with service book.
10. On the other hand the Opposite parties 1 & 2 denied all allegations made in the complaint, admitted that the complainant purchased HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START (Black) on 19-12-2012 from the O.P. 2 and the O.P. 2 received motor cycle from the complainant for general service for changing oil accordingly first service on 30-01-2013 and on the same day the O.P. 2 handed over the vehicle to the complainant. The main contention of the O.P’s that the complainant is lady and she does not know how to ride the vehicle and does not having driving license and the problems arised only due to rough handling or misuse of the motor cycle and also contended that the complainant’s husband used to ride the above said motor cycle triple seated and that too on ghat sections. The sudden stoppage of the vehicle arises only on improper gearing or improper clutching releasing only. For the damage of the clutch plates the O.P’s stated that there are responsibility as per the terms and conditions. O.P. 2 changed of clutch plates without any payment.
11. As seen Ex. A3 i.e. cash receipt it is clear that the complainant purchased a two wheeler HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START (Black) from O.P.2 on 19-12-2012. Ex. A2 is the R.C. book. As per Ex. B1 it reveals that the said motor cycle is serviced by O.P. 2 on 30-10-2012 vide job card No. 1251. The contention of the O.P’s are that the O.P. 2 changed the clutch plates without any cost on the basis of their policy for the satisfaction of the customers though changing of clutch plates and the complainant not satisfied. As seen Ex. B2 it is clear that the O.P. 2 changed the clutch plates with cost of Rs. 890/- vide job card No. 1413. The main contention of the O.P’s are that the clutch plates problems arises only due to rough handling or misuse of the motor cycle. The complainant is the lady and she does not know how to ride the vehicle and does not have driving license. The Husband of the complainant used to the above said motor cycle, triple seated and that too ghat sections. The above said allegations of the O.P’s they did not prove.
12. The complainant admitted in the rejoinder the motor cycle is in the name of the complainant. Still her husband is using the vehicle and he possessed a valid license under Ex. A7. The other contention of the O.P’s that the sudden stoppage of the motor cycle arises only on improper gearing or improper clutch releasing only. In this regard the complainant stated in the rejoinder the riding of the motor cycle is not new to the husband of the complainant. Prior to the motor cycle he has used Splendor NXG motor cycle and the complainant’s husband having a driving license. Hence, the contention of the O.Ps not tenable.
13. As seen from Ex. A1 the said motor cycle purchased on 19-12-2012 and the first service made by the O.P.2 on 30-1-2013 under Ex. B1 and the said vehicle was serviced by O.P.2 within 12 days after first service of the motor cycle having problems clutch plates and sudden stoppage. It means the said motor cycle started trouble within two months, when the complainant purchased the said motor cycle. Till, now the motor cycle was kept with O.P.2 and O.P’s and company people are not rectified the defect of the motor cycle so far.
14. It clearly shows that the motor cycle is having manufacturing defect. In this regard we relied upon a decision of Hon’ble A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in that case the Hon’ble APSCDRC held that IV (2005) CPJ 330 Hero Honda Motors Ltd., and others Vs. T. Nagender that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 15 – Motor vehicles – Manufacturing defects – Vehicle kept for 45 days for repairs defects not rectified – Forum directed O.P. to replace the vehicle with new one with fresh warranty – order upheld in appeal.
15. As per above discussion and decision the complainant proved the deficiency in service of O.P’s as such the points are answered in favour of the complainant.
16. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to replace the defective motor cycle “HAYATE KICK ELECTRICT START” (Black) with new one, pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and pay Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) cost of the complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of the orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 23rd August, 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of delivery receipt issued by the 2nd respondent, dt. 19-12-2012.
Ex. A2 P/c of Registration certificate issued by Registering authority, RTC, Kadapa
Ex. A3 P/c of cash receipt, dt. 19-12-2012.
Ex. A4 Suzuki owner’s manual.
Ex. A5 P/c of lawyer notice, dt. 28-2-2013 with 2 postal receipts.
Ex. A6 Served acknowledgement on 2nd respondent.
Ex. A7 P/c of driving license of complainant husband i.e. K. Ravi.
Ex. A8 P/c of Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No. AP 04 R 1289.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 Original job card bearing No. 1254, dt. 30-1-2013 issued by the 2nd
respondent as 1st service of the said vehicle to the complainant.
Ex. B2 Original job card bearing No. 1413, dt. 12-2-2013 issued by the 2nd
respondent on compliaannt of clutch plate problem and vehicle
sudden stops.
Ex. B3 Original Hayate Owner’s Manual.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri S. Nazeer Basha, Advocate for O.P.1 & 2.
B.V.P.
