CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

Case No.259/2018

PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH

G-172/B LAL KUAN MB ROAD,

NEW DELHI 110044                             …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

1.  BAJAJ AUTO LTD.

CUSTOMER SERVICE HEAD GM, SERVICE BAJAJ AUTO LTD., A KURDI MUMBAI PUNE RAOD

MAHARASHTRA PUNE 411035

2. AMBE AUTO (10680)

DELHI (STATE CODE:07)

AMBE AUTO A-14 KHANPUR EXT.

DEVLI ROAD NEW DELHI 110062

PH NO. 01141909090.                                  .…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-07.12.2018

Date of Order- 04.11.2022

 O R D E R

RASHMI BANSAL– Member

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant for replacement of his motorcycle on the ground of manufacturing defect and for compensation causing mental harassment, agony and inconvenience.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a bike from OP by depositing amount of Rs.14,500/- on 11.10.18 and the rest amount was financed.  On the very first day, i.e., on 12.12.2018 he found that the engine was damaged and there was oil leakage from the engine. He went to the showroom on the very next day for change his bike but showroom manager informed him that he needs to go to Bajaj service center and find the solution. On reaching there it was informed by the manager that they do not change the bike but only repair it and told the complainant that there is major fault of engine due to which engine oil is leaking. Complainant submitted that he ran here and there and also lodged complaint with Bajaj auto complaint number but did not find any solution for his bike. The complainant prays for change of his bike. In support of his case complainant has filed following documents:
   1. Copy of cash memo – Annexure A;
   2. Complaint Bajaj auto free toll-free number vide complaint number ISR433945, ISR435139- Annexure B;
   3. Complaint to consumer helpline number vide complaint docket number 973827- Annexure C;
   4. Bike document received from OP2 dated 22.10.2018 – Annexure D;
   5. Copy of email dated 23.10.2018 written to customer service of OP1- Annexure E;
   6. Copy of email dated 24.10.2018 – Annexure F;
   7. Copy of return email dated 26.10.2018 from customer service of OP – Annexure G;
   8. Reply dated 27.10.2018 to email dated 26.10.2018 – Annexure H;
   9. Copy of the letter written to customer service head General Manager service Bajaj auto and speed posted on 03.11.2018- Annexure I;
   10. Copy of email written to Praveen Agarwal dated 16.11.2018- Annexure J;
   11. Copy of all the documents related to the bike – Annexure K;

2. Upon service of the notice OP1 and OP2 have filed their reply through authorized representative, Exhibit RW1/A, admitted that the bike has been purchased on 10.11.2018 and as per the service history. The complainant has availed first free service on 24.11.2018 at a reading of 500 km and second free service was done on 04.01.2019 at a reading of 4869 km, i.e., on average 90 km per day. The OP further submitted that no vehicle, which suffers from manufacturing defects would cover so much distance in such a short period of time which proves that complainant is using the vehicle extensively and is very well driven and further proves that vehicle is neither having any manufacturing defect nor there is any deficiency in services. The OP submitted that complainant stating that the he brought his bike to the service center with some minor complaint which was thoroughly examined by the trained mechanics of OPs, and only one problem was found in the complaint’s bike that is the leakage of the engine oil in a small amount that too when the bike is parked on the side stand only. There was no other problem found in the bike. It is submitted by OPs that the leakage of engine oil was not because of any manufacturing defect in the bike but because of some minor external reasons like falling  of the bike on road or ground or some other minor accident and the minor problem of a leakage could have been easily cured and OP has offered the complainant free of cost repairing but complainant refused for the same. The complainant was adamant for the replacement of his bike by saying that he said problem amounts to manufacturing defect, which was not possible as the bike did not have any manufacturing defects. The allegations of the complainant are without any substance and also without any cogent evidence to substantiate the same. OP stated that on the direction of this Forum, the OP without any prejudice to the rights and contentions, have repaired the bike of complainant up to his satisfaction and have not charged any money from the complainant, for which complainant has signed a satisfaction voucher to this effect which is on record. OPs submit that the complaint is totally vague, misconceived and without any cause of action and prayed for that dismissal of the same. OP submitted that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same can only be ascertained by way of expert opinion and the burden lies upon the person who alleges a manufacturing defect.

3. We have perused the documents filed by both the parties including their evidence and written arguments. The vehicle is in the possession of the complainant and he is riding the same. The order dated 03.06.2022 of this commission has recorded the statement of the complainant and he submitted that now the bike is running smoothly since he has collected it from OP on 12.01.2020, however, he seeks some compensation for mental harassment that has been caused to him. The satisfaction voucher dated 12.01.2020 is on the record. This Commission is of the opinion that since the bike is in the possession of complainant and the same is running smoothly, however in view of the admitted case of the OPs, that there was the problem of engine oil leakage on the very next date of the sale of bike, this cannot be said that complainant has not suffered any difficulty. Going to service center for repairing the same certainly has caused inconvenience to complainant, therefore, this commission deems it fit that the complainant be compensated for the inconvenience, mental harassment and agony suffered by him and OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-  to the complainant within 90 days from the date of this order, along with 6% interest from the date of the order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the actual realization of the amount by the complainant. The copy of the order be provided to the parties in terms of the CPA 1986. The matter could not be decided in time due to heavy workload of the cases. The order contains 5 pages and each beers my signature. The file be consigned to record room.