Advocate Jayashree Kulkarni for the Complainant
Advocate Suresh Gujrathi for the Opponent No.1
Advocate R. B. Uttekar for the Opponent No.2
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 17th July 2013
This is a complaint filed by consumer against the Dealer and the Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Laxmi Nagar, Parvati, Pune 411 009. Opponent No.1 is the authorized Dealer of the Piaggio Company and the Opponent No.2 is the company. Complainant had purchased Piaggio vehicle from the Opponent No.1 bearing No. MH 12 CT 9498. But within a short period he found that the engine of the vehicle was defective. Hence he requested the opponent for replacement of the engine. Cost of the engine was Rs.60,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.30,000/- on 21/07/2008 and Rs.19,980/- on 28/07/2008. The engine was not replaced even after one month, on the contrary the Opponent No.1 asked the complainant to purchase new vehicle. It was also agreed between the parties that the amount which was paid as price of engine will be adjusted towards the cost of the second vehicle. Hence the complainant has purchased new vehicle No. MH 12 EQ 7174 by obtaining loan. It is the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service as well as defect in the goods. The engine of the first vehicle was defective. The Opponent did not get register the second vehicle in RTO office which was purchased from him hence complainant has sustained loss in his business. Hence he has filed this compliant and has demanded refund of Rs.60,000/- and also asked compensation for loss of business to the tune of Rs.65,000/-. He has further asked Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of complaint.
[2] Opponents appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint by filing separate written version. They have denied the contents of the complaint. The gist of the written version is that the complainant himself agreed to purchase the second vehicle and for adjustment of the cost of engine towards the cost of second vehicle. The second vehicle was registered in RTO office accordingly. The amount which was paid by the complainant was adjusted towards consideration amount of the second vehicle. The relief of deficiency in service and defect in goods for the first vehicle are time barred. There is no deficiency in service as regards second vehicle as the vehicle was registered in R.T.O. and the Opponents are not responsible for the loss sustained to the complainant. The opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties and hearing the argument, scrutinizing the documentary evidence following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved the defects in goods as well as deficiency in service at the hands of the Opponents ? | In the negative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
Admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had purchased two vehicles from the Opponents. When he found defect in the engine of the first vehicle he had requested to replace the engine and the cost of the engine was Rs.60,000/-. It is not in much dispute that there was no defect in the goods during the period of warranty. Hence complainant agreed to pay price of the engine. Subsequently it was agreed between the parties that instead of replacement of the engine the new vehicle is to be purchased from the opponent and the cost of the engine is to be adjusted towards the price of the second vehicle. In order to substantiate this contention the opponent No.1 has produced documents showing that the cost of the second vehicle was Rs.1,57,980/-. Special discount was given to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The amounts which were paid by the complainant on 21/07/2008, 28/07/2008 and 28/08/2008 i.e. Rs.30,000/-, Rs.19,980/- and Rs.3660/- respectively were adjusted towards the price of the second vehicle. The complainant has obtained loan of Rs.90,200/- and that amount was paid to the Opponent No.1. The receipts and tax invoice are produced on record. According to the complainant the vehicle was not registered in the R.T.O. office. Hence he could not ply the vehicle on road and earned money. But it reveals from the record that the vehicle was registered by R.T.O. Pune immediately. The documents as regards registration of vehicle by R.T.O. are produced by the Opponents. As regards defect in the first vehicle which was purchased in the year 2006, these defects cannot be considered in the compliant which is filed in the year 2009. More over the price of the engine including the old vehicle is considered while selling new vehicle. Hence I held that there is neither deficiency in service nor defect in the goods. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
I answer the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. As per peculiar circumstance parties to bear their own cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets which were provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Otherwise they will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 17/07/2013
