DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Presents:-
1 Sri A.K.Purohit, President
2 Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated , Bolangir the 29th day of August’ 2018
C.C. No. 53 of 2017
Sekhar Suman Dash, aged about 30years,
S/o- Krushna Prasad Dash, R/o- At- Nuapada, Bhawanipatna Town,
Po/Ps- Bhawanipatna, District – Kalahandi. State- Osidha, Pin- 766001,
Occupation Banker, Curremt Place of posting, Balliguda, Kandhamal, Odisha, 76210
3
-Versue-
1. Arundhati Motors ( Hero Dealer) Bolangir, near Check Gate, NH- 201,
Sambalpur Road, Bolangir
2. Hero MotoCrop Ltd, 34 Community Center, Basanti Lok, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi- 110057, India
3. Arundhati Automotive ( Hero Dealer) Kalahandi, N.H-201, Kesingha Road,
Bhawanipatna, Po/Ps- Bhawanipatna, District- kalahandi, State- Odisha-766001
4. Hero MotoCrop Ltd, ODYSSA BUSINESS CENTER, Plot No-30,30/982,172/1013,
4th floor, Cuttack- Bhubaneswar Highway Road, ( Main Road Towards Cuttack
adjacent to Marbale Emporium & In front of S.B.I Industrial Branch) Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar.
Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri S.P.Dash
Adv. For O.P :- Sri A.K.Mishra
Date of filing of the Case :- 09.10.2017
Date of Order :- 29.08.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1 The case of the complainant is that, he being influenced with the technology of Hero splendor I smart bike from the sales staff of the O.P.No. 1, he had purchased a Hero Splendor I smart motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-03-G- 557 from the O.P. 1 on dated 29.1.2017 and paid the consideration amount of Rs. 62,655/- vide money receipt No. 5255 dated 29.1.17. After some days of its use and before the 1st free service the complainant found noise in the engine of the said vehicle to which the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service center to which the O.P.No. 3 changed some engine parts, but the defect in the vehicle is till continuing. The complainant took the
-2-
vehicle to the service center several time for the same defect, but the O.Ps. have not able to remove the defect. Lastly the complainant approached the manufacturer through his face book account and in response to the same the manufacturer advised the complainant for service at Bhawanipatna. The complainant alleges that after service the noise in the engine has not been removed by the service center, which is an inherent defects and the O.Ps. have not taken any step for replacement of the vehicle. Hence the complaint.
2. Although O.P.No. 1 and 3 have appeared they did not file their written version and hence they are set experte vide order dated 19.7.18. After closer of hearing when the case is fixed for order on dated 25.8.18 the O.P. 1 & 3 files their written version jointly. However on perusal of the same, it is contended that, both the O.Ps. i.e. O.P.1 & 3 have done their job properly and have changed some part of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. O.P.No. 2 and 4 contested the case by filing their written version jointly. According to the answering O.P. during the first service a minor defect was found and hence the stem valve was changed free of cost. Further the O.P. 1 has replaced some parts under warranty and resolved the issue to the satisfaction of the complainant. The service was provided to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant has signed the satisfaction letter after test ride and resolution of the issue. Hence the O.Ps. claims no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Heard the complainant. The O.Ps. are absent on call. Perused the complaint petition, written version and documentary evidence filed by the parties. In support of his case the complainant has produce Xerox copy of Retail Invoice, copy of money receipt, copy of correspondent to the O.P. and copy of service record of the motorcycle. In support of their case the O.P. 2 & 4 have filed Xerox copy of customer satisfaction note. O.P. 1 & 3 have not produce any documents in support of their case.
4. Purchase of the Hero splendor I Smart bike from the O.P.No. 1 is not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the service center several time for the same complaint. It is also an admitted fact that the O.P. changed some parts of the engine of the vehicle. With these admitted fact the only point for consideration is whether the defect in the motorcycle is a manufacturing defect or not.
5. It is seen from the service record sheet that, the complainant had took his motorcycle to the service center on dated 14.3.17, 4.6.17, 3.9.17, 7.12,17 and 26.3.18. Although service was done on those dates the complainant is complaining noise in the
-3-
motorcycle, for which he had send several message to the manufacturer through email and face book account. It is also evident from the customer satisfaction note filed by the O.P. that they have attended the said complain and provided service to the motorcycle of the complainant. The stand of the O.P. that the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the customer cannot be believed for the reason that after service the complainant is complaining of the same defect. The satisfaction note disclose that the same is relating to attended the complaint by the O.P. There is no evidence available on record to show that the defect in the engine has been removed after service. The O.Ps. have not produce the affidavit evidence of the service engineer to prove that there is no defect in the motorcycle of the complainant. On the other hand the copy of correspondence letter filed by the complainant shows that the motorcycle is not free from defects. It is a fact that a person cannot took his vehicle to the service center several times without any defect.
6. Taking the motorcycle several time to the service center shows that there is inherent defect in the motorcycle which is not repairable. In this context it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017 ( 4 ) CPR 586 ( NC ), Tata Motors Versus Bishmber Nath Sikka wherein, in para 11 the Hon’ble Commission has observed ,
“11. It has been held by this Commission in a number of cases that a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of manufacturing defect or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from defect if there was any fault imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any Law in force. We are supported in this view from an earlier judgment of this Commission delivered in Revision Petition No.7/2013, Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunanda Sangwan, decided on 20.9.2013 . The petitioner/manufacturer has taken the plea that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and hence ,they had no liability in the matter. Considering the view taken in the orders quoted above, it is very clear that the vehicle did suffer from defects, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of a car is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop a number of times unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. Under these circumstances, it becomes the duty of the manufacturer as well as the dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a road-worthy condition free from all defects. In the present case, however, the same appears not to have done.”
-4-
7. Under the aforesaid material available on record and under the aforesaid position of Law it is concluded that the motorcycle of the complainant is not free from defects and there is manufacturing defect in the motorcycle.
8. The complainant is residing in a location where use of motorcycle is very much essential and the complainant is debarred from the same due to defect in the motorcycle for which he had suffered a lot. Hence the complainant is entitled to compensation. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.Ps are directed to refund the price amounting to Rs. 62,655/-( Sixty two thousand six hundred fiftyfive) to the complainant after receipt of the defective Hero Splendor Ismart 110 motorcycle from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( One lakh ) to the complainant towards compensation and cost within the aforesaid period, failing which the entire amount shall bear an interest at the rate of 9% P.A. till payment.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 29th day of August 2018.
.
(S.RATH) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
