Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

     Member

1.       The Complainant Sri S.P.Bharath Raj has filed the complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice and seeking a direction to the opposite parties to deliver the same model new vehicle by receiving the balance amount or to refund the amount of Rs.88,088/- and also to pay a damages of Rs.4,20,508/- with litigation expenses and such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint:

The complainant submit that he has purchased a two wheeler motor bike by name “Bajaj Pulsar RS-200” bearing registration number KA-11EG9961, from 2^nd opposite party for a sum of RS.147,000/- He paid the amount by availing loan of Rs.99,000/- on interest at 12.25% p.a fromBajaj AutoFinance Limited and also paid a sum of Rs.50,000 (including proceeding charges) by cash. The said vehicle was registered at Regional Transport Office at Mandya.

3. The said vehicle run for 2 to 3 days smoothly, later the said vehicle, while running a short distance automatically shut down in middle of the road on many occasion, because of which many, he was abused by the co-riders on the road. The same was alleged was due to manufacturing defect only.  The same was reported to the notice of 2^nd opposite party and requested for rectification of defects by handing over the vehicle. But the 2^nd  opposite party without under taking any rectification work, returned the vehicle stating the vehicle is in good condition. This is alleged as unfair trade practice. Further the vehicle was submitted to 2^nd opposite party for inspection and rectification on 24.08.2017, but once again the 2^nd opposite party failed to cure the defects. Further the complainant has paid principal and interest towards the loan availed by him to purchase the said vehicle and for violation of traffic rules, by the 2^nd opposite party on two occasions, he was made to pay fine of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved with failure to cure the defects in the vehicle, a legal notice was caused upon the opposite parties on 31.08.2017, calling upon to replace the manufacturing defect vehicle and to pay compensation. A rejoinder notice was also issued on 03.10.2017. Only 2^nd opposite party has replied the notice untenably. Hence the complaint is filed seeking reliefs.

4.   The opposite party no.1 and 2 has filed their common version and submit that there is no expert opinion to prove the vehicle sold by them had manufacturing defects. The complainant has not used the vehicle extensively. The complainant is required to follow the instructions given at the time of delivery about usage of the vehicle. The complainant has alleged the manufacturing defect in the vehicle just by using the same for two to three days only. The defects were satisfactorily cured when the complainant left the vehicle for ratification. The vehicle being a new vehicle  it has to be run at lesser speed. The complainant got issued the legal notice by demanding replacement of the vehicle, which was not accepted. The vehicle was subjected to thorough analysis, such as quality of components, engine alignment , engine function, component assemblies, electro mechanical parts, checks, ride test etc by the first opposite part i.e., the manufacturer. The complainant has not specifically quoted  the defects in the bike. Further the complainant he is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle or refund of purchase value.The other averments made by the complainant are denied as follows, hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief and the same was taken on record as Pw1 and Rw1 respectively. The complainant has filed several documents to prove his contentions.

6. The court commissioner appointed by this commission has submitted his report. On 27.01.2020 had reported that, there is absolutely no problem in the vehicle.

7.  Heard the arguments of opposite party no1 and 2 counsel. The complainant counsel not addressed his arguments.

8. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?

2. What order?

9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10. Point No.1:-  The complainant contended that the Bajaj Pulsar motor bike  purchased from 2^nd  opposite party, manufactured by 1^st opposite party, for a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- had manufacturing defects. The vehicle was  run for  two to three days  smoothly, later the engine  of the said vehicle was to shut off  all of a sudden while riding, on the road, because of which other vehicle users  scolded him on road. The vehicle when hand over to opposite party no.2 for rectification, was not properly attended and delivered the vehicle, stating the problem has been cured satisfactorily. Hence the complaint.

11.     The opposite parties counsel argued that the vehicle was under the warranty conditions and the complainant is entitled for rectification of any defects only. But not entitled for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase value of the vehicle. There was no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant has not placed any material evidence to prove the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects. Further since the vehicle is new one, after running the vehicle initially for specified kmts only, the alleged defects are cured when the vehicle was submitted for periodical service as per schedule mentioned in the owner’s  manual as such there was no manufacturing defects in the vehicle.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.  Considering the averments in the affidavit evidence and the contentions, it is true that, the vehicle had been used for just two to three days without any problems from the date of its purchase. Later on complainant experienced sudden switching off of the engine in the middle of the road. As per the manufacture standard instructions any new vehicle shall not be run for longer time and at high speed until the 1^st periodical service of the vehicle, as specified in the owner’s manual . The complainant run the vehicle for just few days and alleged the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects without producing any expert opinion or report. Hence this commission consider that the complainant has failed to proved the allegation and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly point no.1 is answered in the negative.

13. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, on point no.1 the complaint filed by Sri Bharathraj.S.P deserved to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence we proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed
2. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.