Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/27/2018

Mangat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

SH ML Sharma

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/27/2018

  Instituted on:    23.01.2018

                                                               Decided on:     10.10.2022

Mangat Singh son of Sh. Narata Singh, resident of Village Reona Bhola, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Bajaj Auto Limited, Akrudi, Pune (Maharashtra) 411035 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.     Mehar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto Limited, NH-64, Near Railway Crossing, Near Mukat Public School, Rajpura-140401 District Patiala.

3.     Shiv Motors, authorized sub dealer, Bajaj Auto Limited, Buchre Road, GT Road, Sadhugarh, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Adv.              

For OP 1&2               : Shri C.S.Mittal,Adv.

For OP No.3              : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that he availed the services of the OPs by purchasing one CT-100 Alloy Ebony BLK Blue motor cycle bearing engine number DUZPHK06128 and chassis number MD2A18AZ8HPK04264 from OP number 2 vide bill number 1174 dated 3.3.2017 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.38,497/- alongwith other expenses of registration, insurance and accessories etc. The motorcycle in question was having two years warranty and the vehicle was got registered as registration number PB-23-W-1904. Further case of complainant is that the motorcycle supplied to the complainant was defective one and it started leakage of mobile oil from its engine after few days of its purchase, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 25.4.2017, 6.5.2017, 2.6.2017 and on every service this defect was brought to the notice of the OPs. Though OP number 2 assured the complainant regarding removal of the problems in the motorcycle in question, but the same was not solved.  The complainant also approached OP number 3 on 2.10.2017 and even paid Rs.500/- and got service of vehicle regarding leakage of the mobile oil in the motorcycle, but nothing was done.  The complainant also got served a legal notice on 9.12.2017 upon the OPs and the OP number 3 in its reply apprised the complainant to visit OP number 2 and as such the complainant on 5.1.2017 visited OP number 2, but the problem still resists.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund its price and further to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed material facts before this Commission.   Further case of OPs is that the complainant has concealed true facts that on 28.12.2017 the complainant visited  OP and at that time the motorcycle has already run for a distance of 30825 KMs which shows the extensive usage of the vehicle and that there is no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle and even the warranty limit is upto 30000 KMs or 2 years from the date of purchase whichever is earlier.  On merits,  sale and purchase of the motorcycle is admitted. It is also admitted that the motorcycle in question was  under warranty for two years or upto 30000 KMs whichever is earlier.  However, any defect in the motorcycle has been denied. It is also denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in question. Lastly, OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.  

4.             Record shows that the OPs number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and closed evidence. Similarly, OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-A affidavit of Surinder Singh son of Tarlochan Singh  and Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 are copies of various letters and job sheets etc. and closed evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant has purchased one CT-100 Alloy Ebony BLK Blue motor cycle bearing engine number DUZPHK06128 and chassis number MD2A18AZ8HPK04264 from OP number 2 vide bill number 1174 dated 3.3.2017 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.38,497/- and other expenses. The learned counsel for complainant has further contended that the motorcycle in question was having two years warranty and the vehicle was got registered as registration number PB-23-W-1904. Further the learned counsel has contended that the motorcycle supplied to the complainant was defective one and it started leakage of mobile oil from its engine after few days of its purchase, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 25.4.2017, 6.5.2017 and 2.6.2017 and on every service this defect was brought to the notice of the OPs. Though OP number 2 assured the complainant regarding removal of the problems in the motorcycle in question, but the same was not removed.    The complainant also got served a legal notice on 9.12.2017 upon the OPs and the OP number 3 in its reply apprised the complainant to visit OP number 2 and as such the complainant on 5.1.2017 visited OP number 2, but the problem still resists.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently  that on 28.12.2017 the complainant visited  OP and at that time the motorcycle has already run for a distance of 30825 KMs which shows the extensive usage of the vehicle and that there is no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle and even the warranty limit is upto 30000 KMs or 2 years from the date of purchase whichever is earlier.  The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has further contended that the motorcycle in question was  under warranty for two years or upto 30000 KMs whichever is earlier.  It is also denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in question. Lastly, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             Ex.C-2 is the retail invoice dated 3.3.2017 showing purchase of the motorcycle in question. Ex.C-5 is the copy of vehicle history dated 25.4.2017 which shows that the vehicle had run 5163 KMs and on the next date of visit i.e. on 6.5.2017 the vehicle had run 7150 KMs. Ex.C-8  is the copy of legal notice dated 9.12.2017 served upon the OPs  wherein the defects in the motorcycle in question were alleged. Similarly, OP-A is affidavit of Surinder Singh to support the contention in the reply. Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-7 are copies of the job sheets and in most of the same the problem of leakage of engine oil is there. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any expert report to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle, as such we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for complainant to replace the motorcycle in question.  After perusal of the whole record produced on the file by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the problem of  leakage of the mobile oil is there in the motorcycle, which has not been removed by the OPs by repairs.  It is no doubt true that Shri Surinder Singh in his affidavit Ex.OP-A has mentioned that the warranty of the motorcycle was limited upto 30000 KMs or two years whichever is earlier from the date of purchase, but we may mention that the problem of leakage of the mobile oil in the motorcycle started before reaching the warranty limit. Ex.OP-5 is a copy of job sheet dated 15.6.2017 which clearly shows that there was problem in the leakage of mobil oil when the motorcycle had run only 11979 KMs. Again the copy of job card dated 28.12.2017 shows that the problem of engine oil is there in the motorcycle since its purchase.  In the circumstances, we find that the complainant visited the OPs so many times for removal of the defect of leakage of engine oil. As such, we find it to be a fit case, where a direction should be given to the OPs to repair the motorcycle and remove the defects therein free of charge.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number  1 and 2 to repair the motorcycle in question by replacing the parts therein and also remove the defects of leakage of mobile oil from the engine without charging anything from the complainant. We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- being the consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

10.            This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            This order be complied with within a  period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 10, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                          President