Delhi

North East

CC/4/2017

SH. MOHD. KASIM ANSARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ AUTOMOBILES LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

jDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 04/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Mohd.  Kasim  Ansari S/o Sh. Nasir Ahmad Ansari R/o B-96, Street No. 1,Moonga Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Rajiv Automobiles F-396, Bhajanpura, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi-94   Bajaj Automobiles Ltd. A-6, 100 Ft. Road, Near Durga Puri Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi-94   Also At:- Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi Pune 411035	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

03.01.17 19.09.22 10.02.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

      Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

     Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the complainant purchased a motorcycle bearing no. DL 55AQ-9892 on 22.01.16 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 90,700/-. The complainant submitted that after purchasing of the motorcycle it started to abnormal sounds which was due to manufacturing defect and the said motorcycle was under warranty period of two years. The complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on many dates for removing the defect of abnormal sound from his motorcycle. The complainant stated that he had also sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 09.12.16 via speed post dated 16.12.16. The complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 various times but the problem of abnormal sound from his motorcycle is not removed. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for refund/ pay the cost of motorcycle i.e. Rs. 90,700/- and Rs. 1 lakh on account of damages. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is denied that the motorcycle in question giving abnormal sound due to any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle and it is submitted that the complainant selected the bike after thorough checkup and test drive.
3. It is admitted that the complainant first complaint on 29.05.16 i.e. after more than four months of the purchase of the vehicle in question that means for four months from date of purchase there was no abnormal sound then how there can be a manufacturing defect after four months and next the complainant came after three months with the complaint which was not due to the manufacturing defect but of maintenance problem, and complainant has been instructed as well advised to maintain the vehicle as to get the best performance.
4. It is further admitted that the vehicle in question is under warranty and the Opposite Party are under obligation to service/repair the motorcycle as per manual/existing rules. That is further submitted that the vehicle has no problem and is fully roadworthy.
5. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is gross misuse of the process of law and may kindly be dismissed with reasonable cost.  

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party No.1 & 2

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2

8. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of Shri Rajiv Tyagi, Add:- A-6, 100 Foota Road Durga Puri Shahdara, Delhi-93, wherein the opposite parties supported the averments made in its written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

9.  We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle on 22.01.16 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 90,700/-. The Complainant submitted that after purchasing the said motorcycle it was having abnormal sound in the engine which was due to manufacturing defect and the said motorcycle was under warranty period of 2 years. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on many dates for removing the defect of abnormal sound but problem was not solved by the Opposite Party. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
10. As per Opposite Party, Complainant purchased motorcycle from them on 22.01.16 and the first complaint of abnormal sound in motorcycle was made on 29.05.16 i.e. after more than 4 months of the purchase of the vehicle in question that means 4 months from the date of purchase there was no abnormal sound so there is not manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. The next complaint made by Complainant about abnormal sound after 3 months and it was informed to the Complainant that the sound was not due to manufacturing defect but of maintenance problem and Complainant has been instructed as well as advise to maintain the vehicle as to get the best performance and it was admitted by the Opposite Party that vehicle in question is under warranty and Opposite Party are under obligation to service/repair the motorcycle as per manual/existing rule. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the vehicle has no problem and is fully roadworthy.
11.  On the order of the Commission the said motorcycle was sent for mechanical inspection by the expert. As per expert opinion/inspection report dated 31.10.18 the inspection of the motorcycle was done by the expert after 17,165 km run and following the technical observations/opinions were made:-

1. Starting trouble and excessive vibration observed in the engine.
2. Inlet/Exhaust vale and tappet assembly operation is very noisy in warm engine.
3. Excessive crank bearing noise, rattle noise due to lose timing chain and abnormal combustion sound heard from engine as compared to other vehicle of same made & model.
4. An excessive fatigue obtained due to abnormal jerk produced by faulty suspensions.
5. Overheating problem persist in the engine.
6. Vehicle history report shows repeatedly replacement of gaskets due to above stated problems.
7. The above stated engine is showing erratic behaviour than another vehicle of same make and model.

Therefore, I would like to convey my technical opinion to the Hon’ble Consumer Court after considering above stated observations on said vehicle during test drive and vehicle service documents of the concerned dealer/manufacturer, it is found that, inherent manufacturing defects persist in the engine since beginning.

I therefore, suggest that complete engine assembly with cylinder head assembly, required to be replaced with new set by the concerned dealer /manufacture and quality parameter must be maintained at manufacturer end. Beside of the replacement of engine assembly complete the above stated defective parts may also require to be replaced.

12. On the basis of a technical report Opposite Party carried necessary repair/replacement of the part and hand over the vehicle to the Complainant on 16.12.18. As per satisfaction voucher submitted by the Opposite Party, Complainant was received vehicle duly repaired and he found vehicle performance is to his satisfaction.
13. Since the vehicle was under warranty and duly repaired and handed over to the Complainant as suggested by the expert on 16.12.18 and Complainant did not bring any material to the Commission that there was problem in the motorcycle after 16.12.18.
14.  In view of the above discussion and the submission of the Complainant that the vehicle in question does not have any problem since 16.12.18. Since Complainant suffered because of problem in engine of the said vehicle during the warranty period and which was repaired by Opposite Party on 16.12.18. Therefore, Complainant is entitled for the award of Rs. 15,000/- from Opposite party No.1 towards mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
15. Order announced on 10.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)               Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President