Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

27/2012

A.Ravi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Ltd, rep. by Authorised Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Ramachaneran

31 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.02.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  31.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 31^st    DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.27/2012

 

 

      A.Ravi,

S/o Mr. T.Arumugam,

     No.48/2189, Jeevan Bhima Nagar,

Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 101.

                      

                                                                                   ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	1.Bajaj Auto Limited, Rep by Authorised Signatory, Akuridi, Pune – 411 035.   2.KLN Automobiles (P) Lt., Rep by Authorised Signatory, E-5, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai -  600 102.   3.Srivaru Automobiles, Rep by Authorised Signatory, No.12/562, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Panneer Nagar, Mogappair (East) Chennai – 600 037.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                      : 17.02.2012

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. P.Ramachaneran

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties    : Su. Chidambaram

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                           : M/s. V.Srinivasa Babu

                                                           

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant bought Bajaj XCD 135 DTS-SI Motor cycle for a price of Rs.54,795/- on 24.08.2009 (inclusive of insurance and registration charges) from the second opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the first opposite party and the first opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. The Registration Number of the vehicle is TN02 AJ 8211. The Complainant took the vehicle to the second opposite party regularly for its due service and each of such occasions, the second opposite party delivered the vehicle without satisfactorily servicing the same after much delay. Whenever, the Complainant points out the defects or repairs existing even after its service, the second opposite party gave only evasive reply and never attempted to rectify the mistakes pointed out by him. The 2^nd Opposite Party delivered the Complainant that the 3^rd Opposite Party is the authorized out let of the 2^nd Opposite Party and believing his words, the Complainant regularly left the vehicle to the 3^rd Opposite Party for further service. Inspite of regular service done by the  2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party  the vehicle was ceased even before the vehicle ran 20,766 kms by 18.18.2011. Then the vehicle was  left to the 3^rd Opposite Party and he informed him that the engine ceased not due to his negligence in service but due to the manufacturing defect in the engine and he will recommend to the 1^st Opposite Party to reimburse the cost of the Complainant. Believing such words the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,100/- for service and also a sum of Rs.1,338/- for spares and after service he took the vehicle on 03.11.2011. However the engine once again ceased on 10.10.2011 and the 3^rd Opposite Party demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- for service and hence the Complainant left the vehicle with 3^rd Opposite Party itself. The Complainant caused a legal notice dated 19.10.2011. The 3^rd Opposite Party in his reply notice blamed the Complainant for the fault of the vehicle by saying that the engine got ceased due to the poor maintenance of the vehicle and that the vehicle was driven at a high speed. The Complainant states that had he known the fact that the 3^rd Opposite Party is not an “authorized outlet of KLN Automobiles (P) Ltd”, he would not have left his vehicle with him for service. The Complainant who has already crossed 50 years of age, driven the vehicle at a high speed more than that prescribed in the user’s manual and not maintained the vehicle properly. The Complainant states that the 1^st Opposite Party has given a warranty to the vehicle in writing through the owner’s manual for a period of 2 years or 30,000/- kms. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace the defective engine of the vehicle and also to pay the repair charges of Rs.63,233/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The 3^rd Opposite Party   is not a authorized service provider for the above Opposite Parties  1 and 2. The Complainant not complied the mandatory conditions of the warranty stated in the user’s manual. The important condition of the warranty is to be maintained the vehicle as per the precautions given by the owner’s manual which was given along the bill & receipt of the vehicle.

1. Availing of initial 3 free services without lapse.
2. Availing 4 paid services at every 5000 kms. Or 120 days whichever occurs first without any lapse.
3. Availing of all above services at the authorized vehicle dealers and recommended authorized service centers only.
4. Maintaining all services records duly signed and stamped by dealers.
5. Usage of only recommended engine oil specified frequency and drain 10,000 kms & Engine oil top up at 5000 kms.
6. Replacing mandatory periodic parts such as Air filter, Oil filter etc., as per periodic maintenance schedule.

The Complainant, without the knowledge of the 2^nd Opposite Party he himself went and approached the 3^rd Opposite Party and he met the consequences on his own. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 could not undertake any responsibility to the problems which is due to the negligence of the Complainant who has not complied the mandatory conditions etc., The Complainant not produced the records of maintenance with original manual booklet which is supplied with the vehicle. Once the engine repairs attended by the outsiders either the manufacturer of the vehicle M/s.Bajaj or the authorized dealer KLN Bajaj not responsible. Hence the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 prays to dismiss the Complaint.

 

 

3. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 3^rd opposite party is a Proprietary concern carrying on business of service of two wheeler automobiles and till August 2008. At no point of time, this opposite party was the authorized dealer of the first opposite party as falsely alleged. It is the second opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the first opposite party. The Complainant first approached the 3^rd opposite party on 11.01.2011 for general service of his vehicle and this opposite party had done the service and changed the engine oil and checked the battery, which was not carried out as per the owner’s manual. Again on 21.02.2011, the clutch oil was replaced and eventually the engine oil had to be again changed on 21.02.2011. The Complainant again approached this opposite party for repairing his vehicle on 18.08.2011 as the same was not in a running condition. On inspection by this opposite party, it was found that the Complainant had not changed the engine oil for a period of 6 months and hence the engine got seized due to poor maintenance of the Complainant. The vehicle was repaired and later entrusted to the Complainant on 03.09.2011, who received the same duly repaired to his satisfaction after a test drive. The Complainant again brought his vehicle to their concern on 10.10.2011 in a non-running condition. After thorough check up, it was informed by this opposite party that the engine got seized and certain service jobs have to be  undertaken and gave an estimation of the cost of such parts amounting to Rs.5,682/-. It was also noticed that the vehicle has been driven for more than 1000kms from the last service. The Complainant refused to pay the amount but on the other hand demanded that the 3^rd opposite party should do the repair work free of cost. This 3^rd opposite party only engaged in the service of the vehicles and the Complainant who had taken the vehicle after full satisfaction on 03.09.2011 cannot blame this opposite party of negligence or deficiency in service. The Complainant who is not in the habit of maintaining his vehicle properly brought the vehicle in a non-running condition and after careful service, this 3^rd opposite party made the vehicle road worthy but again due to poor maintenance and high speed driving of the Complainant, the engine got seized and the Complainant delivered the vehicle in a non-running condition. It is once again submitted that till August 2008 this opposite party was the authorized outlet of the second opposite party and thereafter there is no privity of contract between the second Opposite Party and this opposite party and hence this 3rd Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.      

4.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5.POINT : 1

          The admitted case of  both the Parties are that the Complainant bought Bajaj XCD 135 DTS-SI Motor cycle for a price of Rs.54,795/- on 24.08.2009 (inclusive of insurance and registration charges) from the second opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the first party and the first party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the Registration Number of the vehicle is TN02 AJ 8211 and initially the Complainant serviced the vehicle with the 2^nd Opposite Party/ service provider  and thereafter the Complainant serviced the vehicle  with the 3^rd Opposite Party/service provider.

          6. According to the Complainant initially he has serviced the vehicle with the 2^nd Opposite Party and he is not satisfied with his service  and hence he shifted the service to the 3^rd Opposite Party and the vehicle got ceased on 18.08.2011 and the 3^rd Opposite Party also  the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party /manufacturer and the 3^rd Opposite Party also has not properly serviced the vehicle and the vehicle is having warranty for 2 years or 30000kms and  during the warranty period the 3^rd Opposite Party lastly gave estimation for Rs.10,000/- to service  the vehicle  and hence the Complainant left the vehicle with the 3^rd Opposite Party itself and therefore  the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in Service in servicing the vehicle and further  the engine of the vehicle is also having  inherent defect.

          7. The Opposite Parties would contend that they have properly serviced the vehicle and the vehicle is not covered  under the warranty period and according to the 2^nd Opposite Party the warranty is only for a period of 1 year  and the 3^rd Opposite Party is not the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party/manufacturer and therefore the Complainant is liable to service the vehicle on payment of charges with the 3^rd Opposite Party and further  the Complainant has not filed any proof that the engine is having inherent defect and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          8. Admittedly the 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the said vehicle was purchased by the Complainant through his authorized dealer of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Ex.A3 to Ex.A9 is the proof for servicing the vehicle with the 2^nd Opposite Party. During the service period with the 2^nd Opposite Party nowhere he alleged that the vehicle was ceased. Only in the Complaint for the first time he alleged that the vehicle was ceased on 18.08.2011. Further nowhere in the Complaint alleged that how the service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party is defective in nature and therefore we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in Service while providing service to the vehicle of the Complainant.

          9. The 3^rd Opposite Party issued Ex.A10, 11,12,14,15 & 17 dated 03.09.2011 invoices to the Complainant for servicing his vehicle. It means, the Complainant serviced his vehicle with the 3^rd Opposite Party between the period 11.01.2011 to 03.09.2011. According to the Complainant that on 08.08.2011 only the vehicle was ceased and entrusted the vehicle for service with the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 3^rd Opposite Party also admitted the vehicle and issued Ex.A15 job card for service. In the said job card the vehicle condition mentioned as ‘Non Running Condition’. After servicing the vehicle by the 3^rd Opposite Party, the Complainant took delivery of the vehicle and used for some time and again the engine of the vehicle once again ceased within a month 10.10.2011 and the 3^rd Opposite Party gave an estimate of Rs.6,000/- to be borne by the Complainant for service and hence the Complainant refused to pay the amount and the vehicle is lying  with the 3^rd Opposite Party.

          10. The Complainant would contend that the vehicle is having 2 years warranty and therefore  the 3^rd Opposite Party has to service the vehicle free of charge and deliver the same. The 3^rd Opposite Party pleaded in his written version that till August 2008 he was the authorized out let of the 2^nd Opposite Party and thereafter there is not privity of contract between the 2^nd Opposite Party with him. Further in Ex.A23 reply notice the 3^rd Opposite Party said that he is not the authorized agent of the 1^st Opposite Party. However the Complainant relied on Ex.A18 that the 3^rd Opposite Party is the authorized out let of the 2^nd Opposite Party and also authorized dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party.

          11. Ex.A18 produced by the complainant does not disclose that the bottom half of the document is one and the same with the delivery challan   found in the top of the document. Moreover the acknowledgement for accepting the vehicle by the 3^rd Opposite Party was on 10.10.2011. On cursory perusal of the Ex.A18, it clearly proves that the xerox copy of acknowledgement found in the top of the document and the names found in the bottom of the document was not  issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party and the complainant has not proved the same.    This point is strengthened by the invoices Ex.A10,11,12,14 & 17 issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant for servicing his vehicle. Nowhere in the said documents contains the contents of the document found in bottom of the Ex.A18. Therefore we hold that the Ex.A18 is not the single document and apart from that the 3^rd Opposite Party is neither the authorized out let of the 2^nd Opposite Party nor the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party while servicing the vehicle of the Complainant on 10.10.2011. Therefore the Complainant is bound to bear the expenses for servicing the vehicle as per estimation given by the 3rd Opposite Party since the 3^rd Opposite Party is not the authorized service provider of the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties. Further the Complainant has not proved how the 3^rd Opposite Party is liable for any Deficiency in Service committed by him.

          12. The Complainant alleged that the vehicle is having 2 years warranty. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 alleged only one year warranty. The Complainant is not filed the warranty as a documents   in this Forum and therefore we hold that the Complainant has not proved that his vehicle is having 2 years warranty.

          13. The Complainant alleged the vehicle is ceased often and therefore the engine is having inherent manufacturing defect. The vehicle is left with the 3^rd Opposite Party who is not the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party/manufacturer. Therefore after leaving the vehicle to an unauthorized service provider, the Complainant cannot allege the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore we hold that the Complainant has not proved that the vehicle is having inherent defect while it was serviced by the 2^nd Opposite Party/authorized service provider and therefore we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party has also has not committed any Deficiency in Service. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has not proved any Deficiency in Service committed by the Opposite Parties and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 8.POINT :2        

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 31^st  day of October 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.08.2009                   Vehicle invoice issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 26.08.2009                   Certificate of registration of vehicle

Ex.A3 dated 22.01.2010                   Service bill issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 12.05.2010                   Job coupon issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 14.05.2010                   Service Bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 07.07.2010                   Workshop cash bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 17.08.2010                   -do-

Ex.A8 dated 18.10.2010                   -do-

Ex.A9 dated 29.11.2010                   -do-

Ex.A10 dated 11.01.2011                 Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A11 dated 11.01.2011                 Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A12 dated 20.02.2011                 Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A13 dated 21.02.2011                 Bill issued by Khivraj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Ex.A14 dated 27.02.2011                 Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A15 dated 18.08.2011                 Job coupon issued by 3^rd  Opposite Party

Ex.A16 dated 26.08.2011                 Counter cash bill issued by Jai autos

Ex.A17 dated 03.09.2011                 Invoice issued by 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A18 dated 10.10.2011                 Counterfoil of acknowledgement of vehicle

Ex.A19 dated 13.10.2011                 Estimation of spare parts issued by 3^rd Opposite

                                                Party

Ex.A20 dated 19.10.2011                 Legal notice issued by Complainant

Ex.A21 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement card from 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A22 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement card from 2^nd  Opposite Party

Ex.A23 dated 03.11.2011                 Reply notice of 3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A24 dated 18.11.2011                 Rejoinder issued by the Complainant

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Service Record of two wheeler

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTY

                                               ….NIL…              

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT