Haryana

Ambala

CC/14/2022

Mani Ghandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Branch of Shree Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	14 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2022
Date of decision	:	04.03.2024

Mani Gandhi W/O Tarun Munjal, Resident of House No-153/12, New Milap Nagar, Ambala City, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Auto Branch of SHREE MOTORS., Authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd, Baldev Nagar, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City, Distt-Ambala (Haryana) (Through its Branch Dealer Manager).
2. SHREE MOTORS, (Authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Opp. MC DONALDS, Village SINGHPURA, JIRAKPUR NH-22, SAS Nagar Mohali-140603, (Through its Manager)
3. SHREE BAJAJ Motors. Auto Agency, Plot No-385, Industrial Area, Phase -2, Chandigarh. (Through its Branch Dealer/Manager)
4. SHREE MOTORS., (Auth service centre), Plot No-169, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana-134116, (Through its Service Manager)
5. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, AKURDI, PUNE, (Maharashtra). (Through its M.D)

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:     Complainant in person alongwith her counsel Shri Vikas Arora, Advocate.

                    Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective vehicle with a new one or to refund the price of the same, Rs.2,83,500/- plus service charges of Rs.4,689/-,(Rs.999/- + Rs.2343/- + Rs.576/- + Rs.771/-) alongwith interest, from the respective date of receipt of the amount, till realization.
2. To pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.   
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
4. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that on 02 Feb 2021 the complainant has purchased Three Wheeler Bajaj Auto CNG MAXIMA (Passenger), from OP No.1 , vide Invoice No-GS042 20/21 dated 02-02-2021, for a sum of Rs.2,48,463/- and besides this OP No.1 received a sum of Rs.9170/- for Insurance and Rs.4670/- for R.C. In this manner, complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,62,303/- to the OP No.1 . The complainant got financed her vehicle. Though the complainant was to pay Rs. 2,62,303/- in installment, but OPs No.1 and 2 with dishonest intention have shown the balance amount of Rs.2,83,500/- instead of Rs.2,62,303/- i.e. Rs. 21,197/- extra calculated with cheating. The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,62,303/- but OPs No.1 and 2 further made 24 installments of Rs. 9500/- per month which comes to Rs. 2,28,000/-, whereas the complainant was required to pay only Rs.1,62,303/- with interest. R.C of the above said vehicle with Registration Number HR-37E 9838 with Engine No-AZXWL109280, Chassis No- MD2B18BX8MWK-50226 Color-ECO GREEN was handed over to the complainant. OP No.1 sold defective vehicle three wheeler after re-painting the same, which gave lot of problem to the complainant, as the complainant was unable to ply the same. At the time selling the above Auto, OP No.1 assured the complainant that if any problem comes in the vehicle within Guaranty period, the company's Authorized Service Centre will rectified the problems free of cost. The complainant is using the above Auto as per guide lines of Bajaj Auto Ltd and getting the service done in time as per instruction given by the OPs. After 10 days from the date of purchase, the Engine Pipe of the above said vehicle was damaged, which was changed by the OP No.1.  After 12 days of changing the engine Pipe second time, engine of the said vehicle started giving problem due to some technical defect, upon which, OP No.1 advised the complainant to send it to authorized workshop service centre at (Zirakpur) OP No.2, which was done by the complainant. On checking, it was found that there is major defect in the engine of the above vehicle which could be repaired at Chandigarh at authorized service centre-OP No.3. Then again the complainant towed her above said vehicle with the help of other vehicle and went to the Workshop of OP No.3. The representative of OP No.3 advised to the complainant that its head mechanic will come from the Bajaj Company from PUNE for inspecting the vehicle. The mechanic of the BAJAJ Company came at the workshop of OP No.3 and then repaired the engine of the above said vehicle. After passing two and half months, the engine of the vehicle started giving same problem which was reported to OP No.1 and 3.  The complainant was advised to send the vehicle to OP No.4, which was towed to it. However, mechanics of OP No.4 told that the engine needs repair on payment basis to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.  Resultantly,  the complainant sent an mail to the Customer Care of the OPs and lodged complaint No-ISR-974508 dated 22 Aug 2021 and also move a complaint to S.P Ambala (Haryana State Women Ayog) to the D.G.P Panchkula, D.C Ambala, Director State Transport Chandigarh. The Police advised to the complainant that this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court. After sending the above complaint and e-mail, the representative of OP No.4 told to the complainant that they are opening the engine of the above said vehicle for repair and she will  have to pay half amount which will be incurred on repair of the above said engine and as such, she paid Rs.3,342/-. After 07 days again the engine of the above vehicle did not work properly. The complainant went to the workshop OP No-3 for repair and after checking the engine, OP No.3 sent it to OP No.2. After 10-15 days the engine KIT of the vehicle was replaced by the  OP No.2 and sent the vehicle to the Workshop of OP No.4 at Panchkula. After 10 to 15 days the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Even thereafter, the engine of the vehicle did not work properly as the Engine level comes down below L level after plying the vehicle up to 1500-2000 K.M but as per instruction given by the company the engine level should be shown between I to H after plying vehicle for 5000 K.M. Hence this complaint.   
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose as the complainant hired the vehicle to one Kamal resident of Rajpura, Punjab and as such the complainant is not a consumer; the complainant has purchased the Auto make Bajaj Maxima CNG with the financial assistance of RBA Finance (P) Ltd of Rs.1,80,000/- and an agreement was executed on 27-1-2021. She was required to repay Rs.1,80,000/- and financial charges Rs.48,000/- i.e. totaling to Rs. 2,28,000/-, in 24 EMI of Rs.. 9500/- each from 2-3-2021 to 2-2-2023 but she failed to do so; the complainant has not come to Commission with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the OPs are having impeccable reputation with regard to quality of goods. The vehicle was sold to the complainant which is having a capacity of (4 persons) with total weight 585 KG. At the time of the purchasing the above said auto the OPs apprised the complainant to use the auto as per specification of the company and also apprised her not to make any alteration and modification in the auto and that if the complainant makes any alteration and modification then the warranty provided by the OPs of the above said auto-shall be automatically lapsed. The OPs clearly mentioned in the warranty card that No claim for exchange or repair can be considered in case of misuse and alteration/modification of the parts of the vehicle in unauthorized manner. The OPs further apprised the complainant to carry four persons including driver, as per the order of Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. The complainant failed to comply the specifications and order of Transport Commissioner and carried 11-14 passengers in one time. She has also done modifications in the auto by fixing rear and middle seat in the auto and fixed heavy angles on the rear bumper, front portion as well as roof of the auto for carrying 11-14 passengers with their luggage and in this way, the weight of auto was increased by 200 KG which caused overheating of engine and consumption of high engine oil. As a gesture of goodwill and to maintain cordial relations, the OPs got repaired the auto of the complainant free of cost despite of the fact that the complainant was not using the auto as per specifications of the company. The OPs have provided best services to the complainants. The OPs have charged from the complainant for engine oil and parts which were not covered under warranty and labour. The damage if any suffered by the complainant in the auto could be due to negligent and improper way in using the auto by carrying 11-14 persons in one time and unauthorized alteration and modification in the auto and for that the OPs cannot be held responsible. The OPs have sold new Auto make Bajaj Maxima CNG (4 persons) and The Automotive Research Association of India issued a certificate to this effect. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by the OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-17, C1/A, C1/B, C2/A, C2/B, C11/A, C15/A, C15/B, C18, C19, C20 and C-21 to C-57 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Manik Khanna, Proprietor of Shree Motors, Plot No.385, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was on account of inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question that it was beyond use, despite many efforts made by the experts of the OPs, yet, by neither replacing the said vehicle with a new one nor refunding the amount paid by the complainant, the OPs are deficient in service and indulged into unfair trade practice.   
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the objections raised in their written version submitted that the mere fact that the vehicle in question was landed for some defect rectification in the engine and that too because the vehicle in question was modified and used beyond its limits, the OPs cannot be held responsible in the matter.  He further submitted that even the expert report has also been received in this case whereby it has been clearly opined that in the first year of purchase of the sale vehicle, it covered distance of 45053 kilometers which establishes that defect arose in the engine after one year and that  it is not proved that any defect occurred in the vehicle because of any negligence on the part of any mechanic of the agency or of the driver of auto. He further opined that firstly the complete crank shaft needs to be replaced and only thereafter it could be seen that the engine is working properly or not.
8.           In the present case, the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant and that defects arose in its engine after about one year as a result of which it was taken to the workshop of the OPs is not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the only moot question which requires to be adjudicated by this Commission is whether the complainant has been able to prove her case that defective vehicle in question, with some inherent defect in its engine was sold to her by the OPs or not. Though the parties have leveled series of allegations against each other in the matter, yet, in order to come to any definite conclusion, this Commission, on the application having been moved by the complainant for inspection of the said vehicle, through some experts, requested the Principal, Govt. ITI, Ambala City to depute some engineer/mechanic, expert in the field of automobile to inspect/check the vehicle in question. 

Resultantly, one Sh.Rishi Pal, Mechanic Motor Vehicle Instructor, GITI, Ambala City, submitted his report dated 13.02.2023, Annexure C-19 and opined that the vehicle in question was inspected and it was found that m.seal has been pasted in the drain plug of crank case, due to this reason there is a leakage in the engine. He further opined that in the first year of purchase of the sale vehicle, it covered distance of 45053 kilometers which establishes that defect arose in the engine after one year. He further opined that it is not proved that any defect occurred in the vehicle because of any negligence on the part of any mechanic of the agency or of the driver of auto. He further opined that firstly the complete crank shaft needs to be replaced and only thereafter it could be seen that the engine is working properly or not.

9.           It may be stated here that the OPs have placed reliance of photographs of the vehicle in question showing (alongwith vehicle number, Annexure R-4 to R-10) that it has been got modified at number of places i.e. pipes frame have been fitted at front side; additional seats have been fitted in the middle of the vehicle; additional pipes have been fitted on ceiling of the vehicle;  additional seats fitted at rear side and heavy angles have been got welded on rear side and contended that fault if any lies on the part of the complainant only, as she got the vehicle in question modified to increase the carrying capacity of passengers and luggage which resulted into overload on all the parts of the vehicle in question including its engine. It is significant to mention here that during the course of arguments, the complainant has brought her vehicle before this Commission to controvert the allegations of the OPs. The said vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the bench in the presence of the complainant and her counsel and learned counsel for the OPs and it was found that some of the additional accessories were got removed from the said vehicle, as the after marks of the accessories were visible from the naked eyes. Even from the perusal of photographs Annexure R-4 to R-10, it is revealed that the additional seats in middle and rear side of the vehicle in question have been got fitted for loading extra passengers/luggage. The vehicle in question has a capacity to carry 04 passengers only and the complainant by modifying the same to carry more passengers has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty and also of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that since the expert, referred to above, has clearly opined that the vehicle in question had covered for more than 45000 kilometers in the first year of its purchase without any defect and also at the same time, there is no fault on the part of mechanics of the agency, as such, if defects arose in the engine of the vehicle in question, probably due to over loading of passengers and luggage, as discussed above, no relief can be awarded to the complainant.     
11.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove her case of any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OPs, as such, no relief can be granted to her. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 04.03.2024

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President