Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/185/2016

N.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto LTD The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

                                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.10.2016

                                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 22^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.185/2016

 

N.Srinivasan,

S/o.I.Nagarajan,

4, East Krishnappa Garden First Lane,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

 

                                                                                           …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.The Managing Director,

Bajaj Auto Limited,

Akurdi, Pune,

Maharashtra – 411 035.

 

2.The Managing Director,

Sales and Service Centre,

Malinisri Motors (10790),

No.106, T.H.Road, New Washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

 

3.The service Engineer,

Showroom – Sales & Service Centre,

Malinisri Motors (10790)

No.106, T.H.Road,

New Washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

 

 

4.The Regional Manager,

Tamilnadu Regional Office,

M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

(Chennai Regional Office),

2^nd& 3^rd Floor, Khivraj Building,

No.616, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 16.12.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

 

Counsel for opposite Parties                    : M/s.D.Balachandran, S.Meenakumari,

                                                                    S.Saravanan, S.Gokulveni

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of 3,00,000/- towards the compensation for the deficiency in service , loss, hardship and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC Bike, Model 2015, Chassis No.MD2A11CZIFWM17483 & Engine Serial No.DHZWFM 95396,    manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd., from M/s. Malinisri Motors (10790), the distributor of Bajaj Auto mobile products for Chennai, New Washermenpet on 08.04.2015 for a sum of 72,248/- (84,500/- on road) vide Invoice No.VSII07902015000030 dated on 08.04.2015. (Vehicle Registration No.TN03 Q 3576) with a warranty for a period of 1 year (i.e. from 08.04.2015 to 07.04.2016), warranting that the bike will give best performance and if any defect including manufacturing defect is found in the above said bike during the warranty period, the service centre of the manufacturer of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., will rectify the said defect with the necessary service extended and replacement of spares to be provided with permanent resolution assured. Bike started giving trouble from the day one the bike started functioning. The complainant sent  e-mail complaint about said bike dated on 31.05.2015, the dealer (3^rd opposite party ) deputed one Mr.KhaderMohideen Service Engineer, who inspected and adjusted the bike and provided the temporary and interim solution for technical defect query made and the said bike has many technical defects identified but two perennial complaints till date remain same without permanent solution to be noted. The complainant states that twelve e-mail complaints were sent  to Bajaj Auto Limited and Malinisri motors vide references 23.07.2015, 25.07.2015, 26.10.2015, 02.10.2015, 20.02.2016, 30.03.2016, 05.04.2016, 06.04.2016, 21.04.2016, 05.05.2016, 08.07.2016 &15.07.2016 about specific two perennial complaint, which were not solved  permanently, which caused the mental agony  to the complainant due to sudden stop of said bike on roads frequently and the dealer M/s.Malinisri Service Engineer (3^rd opposite party ) grubbed the bike on spot at most of the occasions. Bajaj auto Limited also deputed Mr.Senthil Kumar from M/s. Bajaj AutoLtd  ServiceEngineer (3^rd opposite party ) is engaged again for rectification of the defects of the bike, and tried to rectify the defects permanently got failed.  Other bike mechanic and M/s. Malinistri service engineers verbally informed that the bike has manufacturing defect and advised the client as it’s better to get the bike replaced, otherwise the bike will continue to give trouble has been confirmed by third parties. Notice to the opposite parties through lawyers on 16.08.2016 for which M/s.Malini Sri Motors has sent a reply through a reply notice dated on 29.08.2016 with relevant statements. The defective bike sold to the complainant on 08.04.2015 to be compensated for his mental agony due to not meeting the requirement. Therefore  the complainant claims Rs.3,00,000/- due to mental agony and torture by the opposite parties and a Rs.5,000/- for costs.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^ndOPPOSITE PARTY AND ADOPTED BY 1^st, 3^rd, & 4^th OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          As per details given on the owner’s manual, which was given to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the warranty period of the vehicle is 2 years or 30,000 km (as per page no.34 (new) of the owner’s manual). The condition is also clearly mentioned that the customer has to avail all the routine service for the vehicle. Therefore the vehicle of the complainant must have been availed with first service between 500 to 750 kms or within 40 to 50 days from the date of sale whichever is earlier. Since the complainant did not avail the first service within the scheduled time and therefore, as per the owner’s manual the warranty automatically got void as per Bajaj Auto Limited warranty terms. The complainant used the vehicle extensively for about 1305 km within 55 days from the date of purchase and had not reported any complaint in between. Further on 31.05.2015, the complainant sent a complaint on e-mail during the first free service. The 2^nd , 3^rd  and 4^th opposite parties attended the complaints every time and delivered  promptly to the complainant. The delivery report was delivered to the customer as “Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC bike having registration No. TN 03 Q 3576, claiming some defects – the same are not defects but some operation problems just due to wear and tear arising out of the vehicle”. Therefore all the complaints mentioned by the complainant/customer are completely attended  during the service of the vehicle from time to time and the vehicle is delivered in perfect condition. The said defects were only because of improper usage of the vehicle. The complainant is having the habit of writing mails to the first opposite party every time for want of free water wash and seeking special attention whenever he comes to workshop and by threatening the dealer/2 to  4 opposite parties herein. Further though all his complaints have been rectified time to time and the complainant have filed the present complaint just to drag on the opposite parties and to get the vehicle re-placed for no fault on the part of the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant after using the vehicle extensively more than a year is unwarranted and allegations made in the complaint are totally baseless. The vehicle was not reported for any breakdowns at any point of time but the complainant always demanded free pick up facility. Apart from the 2 to 4 opposite parties, the 1^st opposite party one Mr.Senthilkumar (service Engineer, Bajaj Auto Limited) also inspected the vehicle thoroughly and found that the vehicle is perfectly road worthy. Further there are no manufacturing defects. Therefore the question of payment of compensation, deficiency of sold products, deficiency in service does not arise and the present complaint has to be dismissed inlimine. The complainant had made certain false allegations such as the service engineer of 2 to 4 opposite parties verbally informed that the vehicle has the manufacturing defect and advised the complainant to get another bike replaced otherwise the vehicle will continue to give trouble. These opposite parties strictly denies such allegations and none of the service engineers had stated so. Therefore it is made very clear that the complainant is expecting unlawful gain from the opposite parties. Further the complainant issued legal notice with all wrong facts and these opposite parties properly responded to such notice in time and the complaint has to dismissed. The complainant is using the vehicle continuously. Further the complainant had extensively used the vehicle for about 14365 kms as on 31.10.2016 i.e., after two months of reply notice sent by the 2 to 4 opposite parties. Therefore it is very clear that the vehicle was performing very good without any repair or any complainants. Therefore these opposite parties are not responsible for any of the un-warranted demands of the complainants.  No deficiency in service, and there is no loss, hardship or any mental agony caused to the complainant.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

The complainant’s purchase of Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC Bike from M/s Malinishree motors is not denied and supported with document Ex.A1 invoice dated 08.04.2015.  Ex.A2 are the e-mail correspondence between  the parties from 31.05.2015 to 02.08.2016. Ex.A3 is the letter addressed to the 1^st opposite party. Legal notice was sent to all the opposite parties by the complainant through his counsel is Ex.A4 and the reply was received from the opposite parties on 29.08.2016. Job card details and the payment acknowledge are marked as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7. The complainant would contend that the purchased bike started giving trouble from the day one of its functioning, after the receipt of e-mail  the 3^rd opposite party deputed one Mr. KhaderMohideen, service Engineer provided a temporary solution for the queries made and two perennial complaints remain unsolved without permanent solution. The bike used to stop suddenly on the road  frequently 3^rd opposite party had grubbed the bike on spot at most of the occasions and permanent solution for the same by 3^rd opposite party got failed  and 3^rd opposite party engineer verbally advised to get the bike replaced since it has the manufacturing defect.

         5. It  came to light  through e-mail correspondence  in Ex.A2, that  the  bike  repeatedly had  given trouble to the complainant  and  the issues were analyzed  and  perennial  complaint’s  remarks  in the said      correspondence    discloses  that some of the complaints were closed temporarily and some continued.  Some of the settings were adjusted and the complainant had bitter experience over the same. The warranty period between 08.04.2015 to 07.04.2016 as expressed by the complainant is not denied by opposite parties and admittedly, service engineer  sometimes attended the complainant and  interim solution  alone was given as per the complainant and according to the complainant, two perennial  complaints such as ‘frequently getting automatic off’ and ‘gear shifting problem’ which are not solved yet because of which the complainant was not able to attend  the official routine and paid for local transportation for his usage.

             6. The above said allegations were opposed by opposite parties as there were the rough usage of the vehicle by the complainant and also wear and tear problem. But the complainant alleges that the mistakes are due to manufacturing defects based on the verbal report by one of the employee of the opposite parties. No report is filed from an expert or engineer or technician to prove the status of substandard spares usage and manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Oral expression of  a third party or assumptions regarding the alleged manufacturing defect or else the usage sub- standard product   will not  help the complainant’s  case as proved, unless it is proved  or substantiated by any established evidence. Hence the allegation of the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect of the purchased scooter cannot be accepted by this forum.

              7. So far as the other two perennial complaints such as frequently getting automatic off and gear shifting problem are concerned, it was reported within a year of its purchase i.e. within its warranty period. Job cards and certain payment acknowledgement are filed in Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 proves that the services were availed by the complainant and necessary payments were also made. However, analysis of perennial complaints attached with the e-mail shows that some of the complaints were closed and few continued and some were not 100% closed and few were temporally closed, but according to the  complainant the two perinneal problem were yet to be closed whereas there is no remark sheet filed by the opposite parties that the problem was attended and completed their service as service provider. Therefore the complainant’s case as to those point is concerned has to be accepted and there is deficiency in service to that extent and it has to be construed that even after repeated representation through e-mail, the said problem was not rectified.  Even though it is said in the written version and the written arguments that the service was done at all stages of the requirement, there is no rectification report field by the opposite party to the specific two perennial complaints.

             8. The opposite parties would contend that the warranty would automatically get void as per Bajaj Auto Limited warranty terms. Neither the terms nor the owner’s manual is submitted by opposite parties and even if it is so, as per the terms, opposite parties ought not to have committed further services, but that is not so in this case. No document or certificate is produced by opposite parties that the vehicle is perfectly roadworthy as alleged by their engineer. Hence it is concluded as there is deficiency in service so far as two perennial complaints are concerned by 2 to 4 opposite parties.

09. POINT NO:2

          Since it is concluded as there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 4 and also the alleged manufacturing defect is not proved against 1^st opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get compensation only from opposite parties 2 to 4 for their deficiency in service and   the complainant would have suffered mental agony during the sudden stop of the bike on roads and gear change difficulties and also the usage of  hired vehicles at that time . Therefore opposite parties 2 to 4 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for mental agony  besides the payment of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 2 to 4 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant  as compensation for mental agony, besides  a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st  opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of January 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.04.2015                   Bajaj Pulsar Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 31.05.2015                   E-mail correspondence (12 Nos)

                to 02.08.2016

 

Ex.A3 dated 09.05.2016                   Notice to the Managing director of Bajaj

                                                    Automobile Limited 20.07.2016.

 

Ex.A4 dated 16.08.2016                   Legal notice dated sent to the opposite parties by

                                                    the complainant through his Lawyer.

 

Ex.A5 dated 29.08.2016                   Reply notice issued by the opposite parties

 

Ex.A6 dated 31.05.2015                   Job card details (4 Nos)

               to 02.08.2016

 

Ex.A7 dated 24.07.2016                   Payment Acknowledgements (4Nos)

                    02.08.2016

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                ….. NIL ……

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT