Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/645

Ramandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj auto - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 645 of 02.11.2015

   Date of Decision          :  25.09.2017

 

Ramandeep Singh Kohli s/o S. Jaspal Singh Kohli, Block D. H.No.13, Satjot Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

                                                

1.Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune-411035, through Managing Director.

2.Impact Agencies Pvt Ltd., Authorized service centre, Sherpur Chowk, G.T.Road, Bye-Pass, Ludhiana-141003, through Manager.

3.Dada Motors, Savitri-II Complex, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana-141003, through Manager.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP1                           :         Ex-parte

For OP2                           :         Sh.Sunny Aggarwal, Advocate

For OP3                           :         Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant Sh.Ramandeep Singh Kohli, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs by claiming that he purchased Bajaj Pulsar 200 4V Rear Disc motorcycle from OP3, manufactured by OP1, of which OP2 is the authorized service centre. This purchase was made on 9.1.2013 by paying Rs.88,180/- as sale price. It is claimed that the motor cycle was having some manufacturing defect in its regulator and even it was having the pick-up related issues. Complainant presented this motorcycle with OP2 on 23.9.2013 for repair and job card No.997 was issued, but despite that OP2 failed to repair the same. This motorcycle again started giving the same problem and on approach to OP2 on 26.9.2013, job card No.SWJ04364 was prepared for resolving the regulation issue, but instead of repairing the regulator problem, OP2 changed the spray chain lub by charging amount. Thereafter, again complainant took the bike to OP2 on 30.9.2013 for rectification of problem in chain set and job card No.2214 was prepared. Earlier, regulator problem continued, due to which, motorcycle stopped working during driving on the road. However, OP2 once again gave the bike to the complainant without making repair up to the mark. Grievance of the complainant has not been satisfactorily redressed, despite various contacts. Complainant even sent letter dated 16.12.2013 for calling upon Ops to resolve the problem at earliest. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to apologize for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and to repair the motorcycle to his satisfaction or in the alternative, to refund the price amount of Rs.88,180/-. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- more claimed.

2.                 OP1 is ex-parte in this case.

3.                 In written statement filed by OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is baseless and false; complaint is not disclosing any cause of action and complainant is not a consumer of OP2 because he has not purchased the motorcycle from OP2. It is also claimed that OP2 remained diligent in providing due services after sales and that is why satisfaction vouchers used to be issued by the complainant. On the basis of available documents, it is made out that the complainant is owner of motorcycle in question and that OP2 is the authorized service centre of OP1. However, factum of issue of invoice regarding sale denied for want of knowledge. Admittedly, the complainant approached OP2 on 23.9.2013 for rectification of problem of noise in the gear side. It is claimed that said problem was rectified and motor cycle was taken by the complainant in satisfactory condition. Complainant was disclosed that a part namely kit spray chain lub was not available and the same will be replaced as and when the same becomes available in the stock. Complainant was called upon to visit OP2 on 26.9.2013, on which date, the said part was changed by accepting the cost of Rs.159/-. No charges for labour or ancillary charges were taken from the complainant on that date. Admittedly, the complainant again visited OP2 on 30.9.2013 for rectification of noise problem, but it is claimed that same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any penny from him. It is claimed that the complainant is in the habit of sending frivolous, repetitive and incorrect communications, but those have been duly replied. Admittedly, on 15.1.2014, OP2 sent letter to the complainant in acknowledgement of his complaint with request to the complainant to bring his motorcycle to the service station for necessary service. Copy of that communication even was sent to OP1. Whenever, the complainant visited Op2 after 30.9.2013, he was duly satisfied with the provided services and that is why, he signed the satisfaction vouchers dated 1.10.2013, 3.10.2013 and 3.12.2013. Complaint alleged to be baseless and false and filed without any cause of action.

4.                 In separate written reply filed by OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if cause of action has not accrued to the complainant against OP3; the complainant purchased the motorcycle in question after being satisfied with the quality, condition and performance of the motorcycle and after having its test drive. Admittedly, the complainant visited OP3 for the first free service on 28.1.2013 and again on 10.12.2013 for checkup of the vehicle. Vehicle of the complainant was serviced to his satisfaction and complainant never reported about problem in regulator of the vehicle. On 10.12.2013, the vehicle was checked in the presence of complainant and it was found completely defect free and in very good running condition. Complainant took test drive on this date and found the motor cycle working properly. Due services have been rendered by OP2 to the complainant. Purchase of the motor cycle in question manufactured by OP1 admitted. It is claimed that the complainant has never lodged any complaint with OP3. It is further claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction. Other averments of the complaint denied.

5.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C21 and then counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

6.                 On the other hand, counsel for the OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Pankaj Kumar, Service Manager of M/s Impact Agencies Pvt. Ltd along with documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                 Sh.Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of OP3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA3 along with documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 and Ex.OP3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

8.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for the parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

9.                 Purchase of motor cycle in question by the complainant from OP3 is admitted in the submitted replies and even the same is borne from the contents of retail invoice Ex.C4 dated 9.1.2013 along with other retail invoice Ex.C5. Admittedly, this motor cycle is manufactured by OP1 and OP2 is the service centre and that is why, OP2 attended the complainant for rectification of the necessary defects in the motor cycle. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant had to take the motor cycle for necessary repairs after purchase many times, but despite that repair to his satisfaction not carried out and as such, in view of defects being not removed within the warranty period of one year, complainant entitled for refund of price of the motor cycle in question. Op3 is certainly a dealer and as such, he is not to provide services for rectification of defects. It is the service centre or manufacturer, who is to provide the service as per terms and conditions of the warranty and as such, certainly submissions advanced by Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate representing OP3 has force that complaint against OP3 is not maintainable, particularly when no expert opinion produced and nor any expert examined by the complainant for establishing that there was any manufacturing defect in the motor cycle sold by OP3 to the complainant. Manufacturing defect in the motor cycle even is not alleged. Only grievance of the complainant is that despite motor cycle being taken repeatedly to the service centre of OP2, complete defects have not been removed and as such, the complainant entitled for refund of price amount. Certainly, as per the terms and conditions of sales, the manufacturer is liable for removal of manufacturing defects and not beyond that. Those manufacturing defects not proved because from the material produced on record, it is made out that minor problems alone erupted and those were rectified on many occasions to the satisfaction of the complainant and that is why, he issued satisfaction vouchers also. In view of rectification of minor defects done, certainly complainant is not entitled for the refund of price amount because manufacturing defect in the motor cycle in question is not proved at all.

10.               Ex.C1=Ex.OP3/2 is the job sheet dated 10.12.2013, perusal of which reveals that mechanic of Dada Motors tested the motor cycle in the presence of the complainant and found as if there was no problem in the bike. Specific note of date 10.12.2013 in this respect is recorded in this job sheet Ex.C1=Ex.OP3/2 and this job sheet is signed by the complainant and as such, it is obvious that when the motorcycle was brought by the complainant on 10.12.2013, then problem in the same was not

found. Ex.C2=OP3/2A is the retail invoice of date 10.12.2013 showing as if no amount charged from the complainant and as such, free of cost services were provided to the complainant by the service centre on 10.12.2013. However, perusal of Ex.C3=Ex.OP3/3 reveals that job card dated 28.1.2013 was prepared, in which, free of cost services provided to the complainant except that of charging Rs.93.99P from him for chain lubrication and polish along with service tax etc. Lubricants always to be provided by the customer and as such, if chain lubrication charges claimed from the complainant on 28.1.2013 through bill Ex.C3=Ex.OP3/3, then fault with OP2 or any of other Ops cannot be found. Rather, first free service was done without  charging anything virtually from the complainant is a fact disclosed by invoice Ex.C2.

11.               Ex.C6 is the certificate of registration of the motor cycle in question, but Ex.C7 is email sent by the complainant for claiming as if the chain set problem has not been resolved till date. This email is of date 26.11.2013, but job sheet Ex.C1=Ex.OP3/2 is of date 10.12.2013 showing as if no problem was there in the bike when the test drive of same done by the mechanic along with complainant. Problem of chain set virtually was resolved on 28.1.2013 and that is why, chain lubrication charges recovered from the complainant on 28.1.2013 through Ex.C3=Ex.OP3/3.

12.               Perusal of satisfaction voucher Ex.D4 dated 3.10.2013 reveals that problem of missing and chain noise was rectified by lubricating the chain and doing some change and that is why complainant received the repaired vehicle after recording satisfaction note on Ex.D4 itself. Likewise, satisfaction voucher Ex.D5 dated 3.12.2013 proves as if the vehicle was taken by the complainant from Impact Agencies Pvt. Ltd after proper repair and after recording satisfaction note on 3.12.2013. Similar satisfaction voucher Ex.D6 dated 1.10.2013 shows that delivery of the repaired vehicle in question got by the complainant after recording satisfaction note. In view of these satisfaction vouchers and latest job sheet Ex.C1=Ex.OP3/2 of 10.12.2013, it is obvious that due services had been provided by OP2 to the complainant by way of rectifying the problems and that is why, complainant recorded the satisfaction notes after accepting the repairs. So, certainly it is a case, in which, due services provided by the service centre to the satisfaction of the complainant until 10.12.2013 at least. In view of this Ex.C1=Ex.OP3/2, it is obvious that problems mentioned through Ex.C8, the letter of date 20.11.2013, stood resolved.

13.               In letter Ex.C9 dated 16.12.2013 sent by the complainant to Ops, it is mentioned as if there is manufacturing defect, but those manufacturing defects not pointed out specifically and nor any report of expert produced and as such, allegations of manufacturing defect not proved, albeit contents of letter Ex.C9 establishes that even after 16.12.2013, some problems in the bike noticed by the complainant. Ex.C10 is the courier receipt showing as if letter Ex.C9 sent by the complainant to Ops. Ex.C12 and Ex.C16 shows as if kit spray chain lub charges collected from the complainant on 26.9.2013 and 22.11.2013 and those charges recoverable on providing of this spray because the spray is an additional item for comfort of due lubrication of the chain. Ex.C13 to Ex.C15 and Ex.C17 are the documents produced to show as if the vehicle acknowledgment receipt issued on 30.9.2013; 1.10.2013, 22.11.2013 and 26.11.2013. The vehicle on these dates was received after record of satisfaction as revealed by contents of Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 referred above. Ex.C11=Ex.D3 shows as if services done and the problem of gear side noise even was redressed along with problem of mirror etc. As even after resolving of such problem on 10.12.2013, complainant sent email Ex.C9 dated 16.12.2013 and as such, certainly some problems still faced by the complainant and Ops are bound to remove those problems in view of warranty clauses, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.D2.

14.               After going through Ex.D2, it is made out that if delay, if any, at the repairing workshop in carrying out repair of vehicle takes place, then the same shall be not a ground for extending the warranty period and nor the same gives right for claiming compensation for damages. So, compensation for this delay certainly cannot be claimed by the complainant in view of this warranty clause contained in Ex.D2. Further, as per part –A of applicable warranty condition contained in Ex.D2, proprietary parts like tyres, tubes, battery and spark plugs are warranted by their respective manufactures(only one year warranty from the date of purchase/as applicable) and should be claimed on them directly by the customer. Bajaj Auto Company shall not liable to replace them, though their dealer will give full assistance in preferring such claims as per terms contained in Ex.D2. In view of this, chain spray not to be provided free of costs and if charges for the same done, then no violation committed by OP2.

15.               Perusal of Ex.OP3/1 shows as if the motorcycle again taken to OP2 on 11.1.2016 for accidental repair and service oil was changed at that time. In view of contents of Ex.OP3/1, it is obvious that the complainant has some other intention than that of getting the motor cycle repaired as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy. Accidental repairs are not covered by the terms and conditions of the warranty and as such, in view of some oblique motive on the part of complainant, it is obvious that OP1 and OP2 liable to render free of costs services for repair of the motor cycle in question as per terms and conditions of the warranty only. As the motor cycle still has some defects after rendered services of 10.12.2013 and as such, fitness of things warrants that OP1 and OP2 should be directed to render free of cost services for the motor cycle in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, provided complainant takes the motor cycle to OP2 within 20 days after receipt of copy of order. In view of above discussion, no costs or compensation should be allowed in favour of the complainant.

16.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint against OP3 dismissed, but same allowed against OP1 and OP2 in terms that they will render free of costs service for repair of the motorcycle in question to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, provided complainant takes this motor cycle to OP2 within period of 20 days after receipt of copy of order. No order as to compensation or costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

17.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:25.09.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.