Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President.

1.       Complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that complainant has purchased one Motor Bike Bajaj CT-100, Model 2019 bearing registration no.PB-29-AC-7960, which was insured with Opposite Party No.3, vide policy no.D007069594 for the period from 13.08.2019 to 12.08.2024. Alleged that complainant was regularly servicing his bike from Opposite Party No.2, but despite that vehicle of the complainant was seized in the month of May, 2021. Thereafter, the complainant immediately approached to the office of Opposite Party No.2, but to no effect. Further alleged that the original RC of the bike is in possession of Opposite Party No.2 and they are not handed over the same to complainant. In this regard, complainant also moved an application to SHO Police Chownki, Mudki. Complainant also served a legal notice to Opposite Party No.2, but they did not reply to the said notice. Alleged that Opposite Party No.1 was also informed about the seizure of the engine of the bike, through email, but all in vain. Due to such act and conduction of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 complainant suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to give new bike Bajaj CT-100 or its equal amount to complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of 12.08.2019 till its actual realization.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be also granted to complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs; complainant while preferring the present complaint has suppressed the material facts and has misled this Commission by misrepresenting the facts and circumstances of the case; the complainant has failed to apprise this Commission about the fact that the complainant has failed to honour his obligations in respect of getting the scheduled services performed on his vehicle; Opposite Party company has made due efforts to ensure that efficient services are offered to the complainant, but the complainant has grossly failed to maintain the vehicle in a good running condition; the complainant experienced the alleged issues with his vehicle due to improper service management of the vehicle in question and as a consequence, the Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the complainant; the complainant has filed the instant complaint in furtherance of his criminal intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and to extort money from Opposite Party based on his fallacious assertions; the present complaint is filed on frivolous assertions with malafide intention and un-clear hands to take advantage of provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further averred that  complainant has an inadequate service record. To date, the complainant has availed only two services with respect to his vehicle which include one free service and one paid service. The first scheduled service was availed by the complainant on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, the second service was availed by the complainant on 20.04.2021. The gap between the date on which the first service was availed and the date on which second service was availed by the complainant ranges somewhere around 18 months approximately which is unreasonably prolonged. Averred that pursuant to the records of the Opposite Party company, there is no history of the complainant visiting the service centre of Opposite Party company for any alleged engine malfunction and the alleged issue may have arisen due to the improper service management of the vehicle. The complainant has been asked on several occasions to visit the Authorized Service Dealer of Opposite Party company to clear the underlying dues and further collect his registration certificate, however, the complainant has failed to do so on his own will and accord for the reason best know to him. In parawise reply, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Upon service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.       Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint has been filed on false and frivolous facts and is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.3; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and moreover there is not registered office of Opposite Party No.3 at Moga, hence this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decided the present complaint; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3  as from the face of complaint it has been cleared that the same has been filed with a mischievious intention thereby enabling the complainant to enrich her at the cost of Opposite Party No.3 by filing frivolous complaint; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as even there is no single allegation against Opposite Party No.3 and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant is insured vide policy no.D007069594/13082019 from 13.08.2019 to 12.08.2020 for own damage cover and from 13.08.2019 to 12.08.2024 for third party cover and from 13.08.2019 to 12.08.2020 for PA owner driver as per the policy schedule, so except the above mentioned covers there is no cover of the vehicle in question and the answering Opposite Party No.3 it not liable for the manufacturing defect of the vehicle in question. There is clear cut mentioned on the cover note that the insurance company is  liable only as per terms and conditions of the policy in question; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the present complaint has been filed only to injure the reputation of Opposite Party No.3 who has no link with the present complaint and even there is no allegation on the part of the complainant; there is no expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant; till today no claim has been lodged by the complainant before the Opposite Party No.3, On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

5.       Complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Parties denying the objections raised by them in its written reply.

6.       In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

7.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, Opposite Party No.1 has placed on record copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 & Ex.OP1/2 and affidavit of Sh.Umesh Bhangale, Authorized Representative Ex.OP1/3. Whereas, Opposite Party No.3  has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Aniruddha Kiran Kale, Manager Legal Ex.OP3/1.

8.         We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and also gone through the record and also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.

9.       It is not disputed that complainant has purchased one Motor Bike Model, Bajaj CT-100 bearing registration no.PB-29-AC-7960, which was insured with Opposite Party No.3, vide policy no.D007069594 for the period from 13.08.2019 to 12.08.2024. It is also not disputed that engine of the vehicle in question was seized within two years. The grouse of the complainant is that when engine of his bike was seized, he approached Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, but they failed to do any needful. On this plea taken by Opposite Party no.1 is that complainant has an inadequate service record, till date he has availed only two services of his vehicle. The first service availed by the complainant on 22.10.2019 and thereafter second service was availed on 20.04.2021. Further contended that before seizing of the engine there was no any complaint with the service centre regarding the engine malfunction. The alleged issue arises due to improper service of the vehicle in question. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear before this Commission and did not contest the present complaint. Whereas, ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.3 contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and there is no cause of action arose against Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 is not liable for any kind of defect in the vehicle in question.

10.     Perusal of the record reveals that complainant purchased the vehicle in question in the year, 2019 and engine of the said vehicle seized in May, 2021 i.e. within two years of its purchase. Hence, it is proved that the vehicle in question got defective within warranty period, but despite that till date Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to resolve the issue with regard to the vehicle of the complainant and taking the plea that the issue arises to the engine of the vehicle of the complainant due to improper service of the vehicle. However, we are of the concerted view that if any fault occurred in the vehicle in question of the complainant within warranty period, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, being manufacturer and dealer are liable to remove the defect in the vehicle, but they failed to do so. Hence, the deficiency in service on their part is writ large.

11.     Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that RC of the vehicle in question is in possession of Opposite Party No.2 and they have not handed over the same to complainant. On this, the plea taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that as the complainant failed to clear the outstanding amount due against Authorized Dealer that’s why complainant was not supplied with RC of the vehicle. This fact is also proved on record vide Ex.C7 i.e. reply of legal notice that an amount of Rs.3500/- was still outstanding against the complainant.

12.     Now come to the quantum of amount to be awarded to the complainant, vide instant complaint, complainant claimed for the replacement of bike in question or refund of its amount with interest. As the complainant has not placed on record any Job Card revealing that he timely got serviced his vehicle. In the absence of Job Cards it has been observed that complainant was not availing the services of the vehicle in a proper manner. In these circumstances, we are of the concerted view that complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the bike in question or refund of the amount. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant contented that there is no service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 situated in Moga.

13.     From the discussion above, we party allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to repair the vehicle of complainant and to make it in running condition, free of costs. As there is no service centre of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in Moga, so they are directed to inform about their authorized service centre, so that complainant can approach it for the repair of his vehicle. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to issue RC of the vehicle in question to complainant on receipt of amount of Rs.3500/-. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are further burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission