DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C.C. No. : 165 of 2018
Date of Institution : 08.10.2018
Date of Decision : 11.09.2019
Baljinder Singh, s/o Mukhtiar Singh r/o Ward No.22, Jallaleana Road, Des Raj Basti Kotkapura, Tehsil & Distt Faridkot.
.....Complainant
Versus
- Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune, Regional Office, New Corporate Office, Mumbai, Pune Road Akurdi, Pune-411035 through Managing Director.
- Bajaj Auto Limited, M/s Scooter Aid Centre, Old Bus Stand, Faridkot, authorized Dealer Manager/Proprietorship concerned Faridkot.
- Bajaj Auto Limited, M/s Scooter Aid Centre, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura Branch Office, through Branch Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt Ltd, BMC Chowk, IInd Floor, Satnam Complex, G T Road, Jalandhar, through its Manager, having Cover Note No.OG-18-1217-1802-00012357.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.
Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member.
cc no.-165 of 2018
Present: Sh Kiranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,
Sh Satish Jain, Ld Counsel for OP-4,
OP-3 Exparte.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal , President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the vehicle with new one or to refund the cost price of vehicle with interest and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one motor cycle make Bajaj C-T 100, Engine No.75302 model 29.06.2017 bearing registration no.PB04Z-0201 from OPs and at the time of purchase, Ops assured about the quality of said motorcycle and also assured to provide free services within 24 hours in case of any fault or manufacturing defect in same. It is submitted that just after the purchase, when complainant started using the same, he found that there was some defect in said motor cycle as it was not functioning properly. He immediately reported the matter regarding motorcycle to OP-3, Branch Office, Kotkapura, who could not solve the problem and then they shifted the same to Head Office Branch OP-2, Faridkot. After complete checking, OP-2 told complainant that there is manufacturing defect in said motor cycle and on coming to know about manufacturing
cc no.-165 of 2018
defect, OPs assured to replace the same, but till now, they have not replaced his defective motorcycle with new one. At the time of purchase, Ops assured to provide free services in case of any default within 24 hours, but despite repeated requests, they have not replaced his motorcycle. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to replace the vehicle with new one or to refund the cost price of vehicle with interest and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.10.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that whenever complainant brought any complaint regarding problem in his motorcycle, his grievance has been resolved entirely upto his satisfaction. Further averred that complainant brought first complaint on 16.11.2017 and his motor cycle was repaired satisfactorily. There is no manufacturing defect in his vehicle. However, it is admitted that complainant brought his motor cycle to their service centre but it is totally
cc no.-165 of 2018
denied that his problem was not solved. Second service was also done by them and during second service, it was found that there is complaint of clutch jerking and for repair of his vehicle, it was sent to Kotkapura, from where he purchased the said motorcycle. It is averred that OP-2 has been wrongly arrayed in present complaint and it is an abuse of process of law. There is no manufacturing defect in said motorcycle and on second complaint by complainant, services were rendered to complainant upto his satisfaction against voucher dated 27.11.2017. Complainant again approached at their workshop with complaint of clutches and after checking, OP-2 asked him to produce the motorcycle for replacement of clutch assembly while replacing the front fork oil seal and then, complainant produced his motor cycle for replacement of clutch assembly on 30.11.2017 but after repair, he did not sign the job card. OPs have always provided him better services and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is reiterated that there is no manufacturing defect in his motorcycle and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 OP-4 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that as per terms and conditions, claim of complainant does not come under the policy and complaint is not liable against them. OP-2 checked the motor cycle of complainant and told him that there is manufacturing defect in said vehicle. Product is manufactured by OP-1and guarantee and warranty regarding said motorcycle is given by OP-1 to 3 and they have no role in redressing the grievance of complainant as defect in respect of
cc no.-165 of 2018
said motorcycle are to be removed by manufacturer or its service providers. On merits, they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that there is not deficiency in service on the part of OP-4 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6 As per office report, notice of complaint containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3 through registered post, but it did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Though OP-3 was duly served, but despite repeated calls, it did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel on date fixed and therefore, vide order dated 27.11.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.
7 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant as Ex C-1 and Ex C-2, affidavit of Rakesh Beri Ex C-7 and documents Ex C-3 to Ex C-6 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.
8 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamal Jain Ex OP-1,2/1, documents Ex OP-1,2/2 to Ex OP-1,2/11 and then, closed the evidence. Ld Counsel for OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Singh
cc no.-165 of 2018
as Ex OP-4/1 and documents Ex OP-4/2 to OP-4/ 3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-4.
9 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.
10 From the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a motor cycle from OP-2 against proper bill, but since the day of purchase, motor cycle in question was giving trouble to him as it was not functioning properly. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the said vehicle from OP-3 and it is admitted by OP-1 and 2 in their written reply that complainant brought before them complaints regarding functioning of said motorcycle. it is also admitted by OPs that clutch system of said motorcycle was having some defect. To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-7 that is copy of affidavit given by Rakesh Beri, who runs his shop for doing repair and service to motorcycles. From his statement, it is clear that there is some manufacturing and technical defect in the engine of said motorcycle. Legal notice Ex C-5 served upon OPs by complainant through his counsel also narrates the grievance of complainant that he made several requests to OPs to remove the defect from said motorcycle and make it worthy to run. Had OPs taken notice of complaints regarding said motor cycle in time and had provided effective and efficient services upto the satisfaction
cc no.-165 of 2018
of complainant, case of complainant would have been different. OPs have failed to remove the defect from said motorcycle and all this amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case and all documents placed on record by him are fully authentic.
11 In the light of above discussion, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to 3 in not providing effective and efficient services and they failed to remove the defect from said vehicle. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 to 3 and OP-1 to 3 are directed to repair the motorcycle of complainant and make it defect free and replace the defective parts, if any, free of costs. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. OP-4 is Insurance Company and it has no role to play in repair of said motorcycle and as such, complaint against OP-4 stands dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 11.09.2019 (Parampal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
