Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 304.
Instituted on : 03.09.2014.
Decided on : 21.07.2015.
Jitender Kaushik son of Sh. Suresh Kaushik resident of H.No.918/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune-411035 through its Managing Director.
- Ansh Bajaj Ltd., Sheela Bypass near Sagar Villa, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTSi from the opposite parties under CSD Canteen on 24.7.2013 for a sum of Rs.61629/- and at the time of purchase of said motorcycle, opposite party no.2 has assured the complainant to provide warranty of two years. It is averred that just after few days of the purchase, the complainant is facing a great problem as the motorcycle suddenly stopped working. It is averred that the complainant had taken the said vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.2 many a times and requested the engineers to remove the defect of the motorcycle but the actual problem of the motorcycle has not been removed upto till date. The complainant had spent a huge amount but just after few days of repair, the motorcycle again stopped working. It is averred that the motorcycle in question was having manufacturing defect and the opposite parties have cheated the complainant with malafide intention to harass, humiliate and to cause financial loss to him. It is averred that the complainant requested the opposite parties many times either to replace the motorcycle or to refund the cost of motorcycle and also served a legal notice dated 02.05.2014 but the opposite parties failed to do the needful and even the notice was not replied. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the motorcycle or to refund the price of motorcycle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the motorcycle sold by the opposite party no.2 was brand new without any defect and still there is no defect in the motorcycle of the complainant. It is averred that since the date of purchase and upto 12.04.2014 the motorcycle in question had covered a distance of 6318 km. It is further averred that the opposite party is ready to remove the defect if any in the alleged motorcycle upto the satisfaction of the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that since there is no defect in the motorcycle, there is no question of replacing or refunding of its cost. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Sh. Sandeep AR for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per Invoice Ex.C2 dated 24.07.2013, complainant had purchased one Bajaj Pulsar Bike for a sum of Rs.61629/- from the opposite party No.2. The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle in question started giving problems from the very beginning and on complaint the opposite party no.2 changed some parts but the actual problem has not been removed uptill date and as such there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that whenever the complainant brought his motorcycle in the workshop of opposite party no.2, he was attended promptly and services to his motorcycle were provided upto his satisfaction but the complainant did not satisfy with the services provided to him. It is further contended that there is no defect in the motorcycle in question and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 24.07.2013 and as per the bills Ex.C11 to Ex.C15 services were provided to the vehicle of complainant. As per Ex.C19 the problem detected was “Disturbance in fuel system”. As per letter Ex.C22, it is submitted that there was some defect in the bike of complainant from the date of purchase regarding losse Race & even stop while running and despite repeated repairs by the opposite party no.2, the defects could not be removed”. As per Satisfaction Vouchers Ex.C23 to Ex.C26 several parts were replaced by the opposite party w.e.f. 03.04.2014 to 21.04.2014 but the complainant was not satisfied with the work done by the opposite party which shows that there was some problem in the vehicle in question which appeared during warranty period but the defect could not be removed properly and as such the complainant was not satisfied. But to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the complainant has not placed on record any expert report. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in II(2015)CPJ 715(NC) titled as Jivrajbhai Bhikhabhai Kakadia Vs. Mega Automobile Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Manufacturing defect-Warranty was lapsed after one year-OP gave proper services during warranty period-complainant had not proved that it was manufacturing defect by cogent evidence from authorized expert or vehicle was not tested before Government Laboratory as per Section 13(1)(C) of CP Act-Vehicle ran about 71045 kms-Manufacturing defect not proved”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. However the opposite parties vide their reply and affidavit has submitted that opposite parties are still ready to remove the defects if any in the vehicle. In such circumstances it would be suffice to remove the defects of the vehicle in question by the opposite parties.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions it is observed that opposite parties shall remove the inherent defects of the vehicle in question free of cost and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
