Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/906/2016

Mohkam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arif Qureshi

13 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/906/2016
Date of Institution	:	05/10/2016
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2018

 

Mohkam Singh son of Rama, R/o Village Bishnot Tehsil Nakur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. (Presently residing at H.No.13, Village Kambala, Mohali, Punjab).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1]    Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune, 411035, India, through its Managing Director.

2]    Ekta Bajaj, G.T. Road, District Karnal – 132001, Haryana, through its Proprietor.

3]    Partap Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 182/83, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arif Qureshi, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Vaneesh Khanna, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant, who is earning his livelihood by repairing the electrical household appliances, purchased one Bajaj CT-100 Motorcycle from Opposite Party No.2 on 06.05.2015 vide Cash Memo Annexure C-1. The Complainant got all the free services done from Opposite Party No.3, as scheduled. It has been alleged that there was overheating problem in the motorcycle, owing to which on 18.01.2016 it did not start and was accordingly taken to Opposite Party No.3 where its crankshaft, piston & gasket were replaced vide bill Annexure C-6. The tumult of the Complainant did not stop here, as again on 02.05.2016 the motorcycle broke down and did not start even after various attempts. On taking the same to Opposite Party No.3, it only changed the oil and handed a bill of Rs.370/- (Annexure C-7). It has been alleged that the Complainant had been suffering from the very beginning owing to defective motorcycle as the Opposite Parties failed to assuage his grievance. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.3 contested the claim of the Complainant, inter alia, pleading that the defects pointed out in the vehicle are due to normal wear and tear. Moreover, whenever the vehicle was brought to its Workshop, the same was duly attended and all the reported defects were duly rectified and the defective parts were changed free of cost under warranty. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         A meticulous perusal of the documentary evidence placed on the file reveals that the Complainant had to visit the Service Station (Opposite Party No.3) for the replacement of crankshaft, piston and gasket. Needless to mention here that these are the important parts of the vehicle, which were replaced within 7 months of its usage vide bill Annexure C-6. All this makes a clear pointer towards the fact that the vehicle was having certain major defect.
8.         The complainant in order to substantiate his claim and to seek an independent expert opinion had moved an application for appointment of an expert for the purpose of obtaining the expert’s opinion qua the deficiencies present in the motorcycle. The application was allowed on 04.10.2017 and the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Sector 12, Chandigarh was asked to constitute a panel of experts to examine the vehicle for the defects mentioned in the Complaint and to submit a report. The relevant portion of the Expert Report dated 05.02.2018 reads as under: -

“The problem in starting the engine of the vehicle in question started within two months of purchase which is not desirable for a new vehicle and the same could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties even after changing the complete kit by them. On perusal of the records and discussion with both the parties the Committee is of the opinion that the vehicle has some inherent defect as alleged by the Complainant.”

 

                From the observations made by the Expert Committee, it is evident that the vehicle has some inherent defects as the same could not be rectified even after changing the complete kit by the authorized service station of the Company. Consequently, the expert report which is by an independent body, being a cogent and authentic document cannot be disbelieved.

9.         In this backdrop, since it is adequately made out from the expert report that the subject vehicle was suffering from an inherent manufacturing defect, we feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to take appropriate steps to ensure that the said defects were removed as the vehicle was within the period of warranty and then the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant in a roadworthy condition, but the Opposite Parties failed to discharge their responsibility in this regard.  It is important to note that the replacement of major parts of the vehicle was an indicator of the fact that the vehicle was suffering from some major fault, which the Opposite Parties by replacing them, free of cost, within the warranty period, tried to washout their hands without focusing on the reason(s) of the defects.    
10.         In view of foregoings, we are of the concerted view that if the Opposite Parties could have given appropriate solution to the Complainant during the service/follow-ups, there was no reason for the Complainant to move to this Forum to get his grievance redressed. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for selling defective motorcycle to the Complainant and thereafter, hiding the fact of major defects in it and forcing the Complainant to indulge in the present litigation which could have been avoided at the earlier stage, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which in turn has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant, besides forcing him to spent amount on the present unnecessary litigation.
11.         In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation in holding, that the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are directed, jointly and severally, as under:-

[a]    To refund the invoice price of the motorcycle i.e. Rs.36,200/- to the Complainant and take back the defective vehicle in question, at their expenses. 

[b]    To pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony & harassment suffered by the Complainant for the past three years; 

[c]    The costs of Rs.5900/- incurred by the Complainant for taking the expert opinion dated 05.02.2018 be paid/ reimbursed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant;

[d]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a], [b] & [c] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

		Sd/-	Sd/-
13/09/2018		[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]	[SURJEET KAUR]
		Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”