Punjab

Sangrur

CC/264/2014

RAJINDER SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AUTH.SIGNATORY - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH JUNEJA

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    264

                                                Instituted on:      07.05.2014

                                                Decided on:       07.04.2015

 

Rajinder Singla aged 62 years son of Late Shri Om Parkash, resident of H.No.187, Magzine Street, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Shiva Motors, authorised dealer LML and Hindustan Motors, Near Telephone Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

2.     LML, C-3, Panki Industrial Estate, Site-I, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajinder Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one LML NV-4 stroke scooter from Ops vide bill number 1102 dated 21.6.2011 for Rs.45,500/- in cash. It is further averred that after the purchase of the scooter, it started to give trouble and did not work properly as it suffered from the burning of plugs, lights and was not giving proper average.  The complainant approached the Ops and lodged the complaints regarding above said defects, but the OP number 1 always told that everything will be all right after three/four services.  The complainant got served the scooter from the OP number 1 on different dates.  It is further stated that till date the scooter is not working properly and all the above said defects have not been removed.  It is further stated that the complainant got checked the scooter from Shri Satvinder Pal Singh Prop. Pee Ell Auto Service, who told that there is manufacturing defect in the engine and due to that the damage is caused to plug and lights and is also not giving proper average.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 1 to replace the scooter in question, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the scooter in question with a new one or to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.45,500/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the scooter in question from OP number 1. It is denied that the scooter in question is giving any problem and problem of burning of plugs, lights etc. is also denied.  It has been denied that the complainant lodged any complaint regarding any defect in the scooter.  It is stated that the complainant got serviced his scooter from the OP number 1 on 1.8.2011, 2.12.2011, 14.3.2012, 30.6.2012, 15.10.2012, 19.2.2013, 3.5.2013 and lastly on 13.12.2013, but the complainant never brought into the notice of OP number 1 any problem except on 13.12.2013 the complainant told that there is some noise in the engine, which was removed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the scooter in question on 21.6.2011 and the present complaint has been filed after using the scooter for about three years. It is denied that the scooter was giving any trouble and the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It has been denied that the engine of the scooter was ever overhauled.  It is stated that the complainant has got the scooter checked from one Shri Satwinder Pal Singh, which is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions.  Moreover Shri Satwinder Pal Singh cannot be said to be a technical expert as neither the complainant nor the said Shri Satwinder Pal Singh had given details of his technical qualifications and experience.  As such, it is stated that his report carries no value.   It is stated that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the scooter, as such the question of overhauling of the engine number of times does not arise at all.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of mechanic report, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of job sheet,  Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 copy of job cards and Ex.C-10 warranty card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of periodical maintenance chart, Ex.OP-2 copy of warranty card, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-10 copies of job card, Ex.OP-11 affidavit and Ex.OP-12 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the LML scooter in question from OP number 1 vide bill dated 21.6.2011 for Rs.45,500/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the scooter in question was manufactured by OP number 2. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs supplied to the complainant the defective scooter which was having problem of burning of plugs, lights and was not giving the proper average from the very date of its purchase and has sought replacement of the scooter or in the alternative to refund its price.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the scooter supplied to the complainant is free from any defects.  It is further contended that the complainant never brought any defect in the scooter in the notice of the OP number 1 at the time of various services which were conducted on 1.8.2011, 2.12.2011, 14.3.2012, 30.6.2012, 15.10.2012, 19.02.2013 and 3.5.2013.  It is further contended that had there been any defect in the scooter, the complainant must have brought the same into the notice of OP number 1 earlier.  The learned counsel for the Ops has stated further that the complainant complained only on 13.12.2013 that there is some noise in the engine and the same was immediately removed at the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant signed the job sheet after his full satisfaction.  We have also perused the copies of job sheets Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 which are dated 1.8.2011, 30.6.2012, 3.5.2013 and 2.12.2011, but in none of them the complainant has got mentioned any defect in the scooter such as plug, lighting or any other problem.     The complainant has further placed on record the expert report Ex.C-2 dated 5.2.2014 which has been issued by one Satvinder Pal Singh wherein it has been mentioned that he checked the scooter bearing registration number PBZ-2911 and he found that there is defect in the engine and due to that the plug of the engine and wiring were burnt.  There is no mention in the report that on what date and time the scooter in question was checked and whether the same was belonging to the complainant or not.  It is further worth mentioning here that Shri Satvinder Pal Singh has not mentioned in the report that what is his qualification or whether he is an engineer in the automobile trade.  The same is the position of the affidavit of Shri Satvinder Pal Singh, which is on record Ex.C-5 and there is nothing mentioned about the manufacturing defect in the engine and how he detected the same. As such, we feel that the expert report is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.  Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has himself miserably failed to establish on record that the scooter in question is/was suffering from any manufacturing defect or there is any defect in the engine of the scooter and due to that the plugs and wiring of the scooter were burning. 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member