CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.640/2009
SH. VAKEEL ISHTIAQ
S/O SH. ISHTIAQ AHMAD,
R/O C-19, ABUL FAZAL ENCLAVE,
JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA,
NEW DELHI-110025
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- ANSARI AUTO
B-151, KALINDI KUNJ ROAD,
SHAHEEN BAGH, ABUL FAZAL ENCLAVE,
JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA,
NEW DELHI-110025
- DEWAN AUTO
J-25, CENTRAL MARKET,
LAJPAT NAGAR-II,
NEW DELHI-110024
- MANAGER SERVICE, BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,
B-60/61, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA-II,
NEW DELHI-110028
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 12.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
OP-3 i.e. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., is manufacturer of motor cycle, OP-2 is authorized dealer of OP-3 and OP-1 is authorized service centre of OP-3.
The case of complainant is that he purchased a Pulsar motor cycle, registration No.DL-3SBF-3620 for a sum of Rs.68,330/- from OP-2 on 17.07.2007 with guarantee period was of two years. The engine of the motor cycle became defective twice in a month. Complainant made complaint in this regard to OP-2. The motor cycle was taken to OP-1 on 22.01.2009 because of certain defects. The motor cycle was repaired and was handed over to complainant in good condition. The motor cycle again became defective and taken to OP-1 and the service was done. The vehicle became defective on 06.6.2009 in UP and the vehicle was transported to Delhi in a truck on 11.6.09. the vehicle was given to OP-1 however OP-1 refused to work on the vehicle. The matter was brought to the notice of OP-3. In fact numerous complaints were made to OP-3 on 13.7.2009, 15.7.2009, 18.7.2009 and 20.7.2009 but in vain. OP-1 retained the motor cycle of complainant for long time and after a quarrel with the complainant the motor cycle was returned to complainant on 06.08.2009 and since then the motor cycle is not in running condition. It is prayed that OP-3 be directed to replace the motor cycle with a new one also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- for transport expenditure charged by the transporter in bringing the motor cycle to Delhi from District Bijnor.
OP-1 and OP-3 in their reply took the plea that complainant approached OP-1 for the first time on 22.01.2009 for routine service of his Pulsar motor cycle. OP-1 provided its services to the complainant as per requirement and satisfaction of the complainant. Complainant again approached OP-1 on 20.4.2009 for service of his motor cycle. The service was again provided to complainant to his entire satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant approached OP-1 on 27.4.2009 and 03.6.2009 for replacement of parts due to wear and tear in the motor cycle. The needful was done. Complainant drove his motor cycle to Bijnor, UP which is more than 200 km away from Delhi hence it appears that due to such long drive the engine of the motor cycle got seized on its way from Bijnor to Delhi. Complainant brought his motor cycle to the service centre of OP-1. OP-1 repaired the vehicle and replaced the damaged cylinder piston kit and did not charge for the same as motor cycle was under warranty period.
It is further stated that once the cylinder piston work is done in a motor cycle, the vehicle is required to be driven at the maximum speed of 40 km/hr upto at least 500 km. and also requires engine oil to be exchanged after driving the vehicle for 500 km. In the present case complainant drove his bike to Aligarh, UP after cylinder piston work in the bike and he must have driven his motor cycle at very high speed on the highway of Delhi to Aligarh and vice versa before completion of 500 km. and as such the cylinder piston of the motor cycle got defective. Complainant approached OP-1 and asked him to pay him cash which he had incurred in repair of his motor cycle on the way to Delhi from Aligarh and demanded to replace his bike with new one. On inspection of motor bike in question, it was found that complainant had got done some mechanical work on his bike by some road side mechanic as there was misalignment and cylinder piston had got defective as there was no oil in the engine. When this was pointed out by OP-1, complainant started abusing and threatening OP-1 and OP-1 had to call a PCR to get police assistance. However, to have good customer relation, OP-1 did not get registered any criminal case against the complainant.
The complainant again approached OP-1 and OP-1 installed new cylinder piston and repaired motor cycle to his entire satisfaction free of charge and complainant receive his motor cycle on 06.8.2009 in very good condition complainant is enjoying his motor cycle without any complaint. It is stated that there is no defect in the engine. Complainant has not filed the report of any expert to show that there was any defect in the engine. It is prayed that complaint has been filed just to harass OPs. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 has taken the plea that complainant is expected to take service free and paid from authorized service centre of the company from time to time on regular basis which is clearly mentioned in the manual provided to the complainant. However, in present case the services were not taken on time by the complainant hence engine of the vehicle might have become weak. After 14259 Km., complainant has taken services from OP-1. Complainant has failed to comply with company guidelines . The present complaint has been filed after two years of purchase and after driving the vehicle in question for more than 22856 km.
We have heard Ld. counsel for parties and carefully perused the record and gone through the written submissions of the parties.
Complainant has placed on record certain documents. The vehicle was taken for the first time for free service on 03.8.07 to OP-2. The needful was done. It was a routine service. There was nothing on the record to suggest that there was any defect in the engine as stated by complainant in the complaint. Thereafter the vehicle was taken to OP-2 on 28.2.08, 27.9.08 and 04.12.2008. These are regarding routine wear and tear and there is nothing to suggest that there was any defect in the engine. The job card shows that vehicle was regularly used by complainant. Vehicle was initially taken to OP-2 on 03.8.07 and it has covered 883 kms. When it was taken to OP-2 on 04.12.2008, it has covered 16470 Kms meaning thereby that the vehicle has been constantly used by the complainant. Had there been any defect in the engine, the motor cycle would not have covered 22856 Km. As already stated, there is nothing in job card to show that there was any defect in the engine of the motor cycle.
Thereafter the motorcycle was taken to OP-1 for the first time on 22.01.2009 needful was done. It is admitted by the complainant that the vehicle was repaired to his satisfaction. The vehicle was again taken to OP-2 on 20.4.2009 and a sum of Rs.388/- was charged. By that time the vehicle ahs travelled 21226 Kms. Vehicle was taken to OP-2 on 27.4.2009 for some minor defect needful was done and Rs.84/- was charged. The vehicle was again taken to OP-2 on 03.6.2009 by that time it has covered 22410 km. The needful was done and a sum of Rs.169/- was charged. The vehicle was taken on 11.6.09 to OP-2, the needful was done and OP has returned the vehicle on 06.8.2009 and thereafter the vehicle was never brought to OP-1. It is significant to note that the first complaint was made by complainant for replacement of the vehicle on 13.7.09 i.e. a few days before the expiry of the guarantee. The second complaint was made on 15.7.09, third complaint on 18.7.09 and then on 20.7.09. There is no question of replacing the vehicle as it was constantly used by complainant. Finally, the vehicle was brought to OP-2 and was returned by OP-2 on 06.8.2009 after doing the needful. There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any defect in the engine of the motor cycle. No report of expert is placed on the record. OP-2 has given details of the services undertaken by complainant. These details show that complainant has not undertaken the services on due time. Apart from that there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any defect in engine as complainant has used motor cycle almost for two years and covered more than 22000 kms. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs hence complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
