DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 78/2015
Date of Institution : 27.04.2015
Date of Decision : 19.08.2015
Bhagwant Rai aged about 53 years son of Lachhmi Narain, resident of # 178, 22 Acre, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Bansal Automobiles, Near Court Complex, Handiaya Road, Barnala through its proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Hero MotoCorp Ltd., registered office 34, Community Centre, Basant Lock, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Responsible person.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant
Sh. JK Kapil counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 exparte
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Bhagwant Rai son of Lachhmi Narain (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Bansal Automobiles opposite party No. 1 and Hero MotoCorp Ltd. opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a motorcycle Splendor I Smart on 7.7.2014 from the opposite party No. 1. The said motorcycle is manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 is authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that after two services, the engine of the said motorcycle started making a noise and also used to stop suddenly and upon inquiry the complainant came to know that the opposite party No. 1 is not used the authorized Mobil oil at the time of service of the vehicle in their service station and due to this the vehicles are facing problem. Then the complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No. 1 for the 4th service i.e. on 18.4.2015. The complainant asked the manager of service station to change the Mobil oil. The mechanic who was doing the service of motorcycle of the complainant tried to put non standard/sub standard Mobil oil in the motorcycle which was taken from an open drum and there was no marka/label of any company on the drum. Then the complainant stopped the mechanic and inquired from him whether the said Mobil oil is prescribed by the opposite party No. 2 or not. In the reply of the said mechanic it was told that it was not prescribed by the opposite party No. 2. However they were using this Mobil oil and there is no complaint. Then the complainant asked the Manager to satisfy him regarding the standard of Mobil oil which was putting in the motorcycle but Manager of opposite party No. 1 started to use filthy language against the complainant and they also refused to put the standard mobil in the motorcycle. On this the complainant requested the Manager to put mobil oil of standard company and then the complainant purchased mobil oil of Castrol Active company from V.K. Automobiles for Rs. 290/- and handover the same to the Manager of the opposite party No. 1 and the mechanic put the same into his motorcycle. It is further alleged that due to this grudge and with bad intention, Manager of the opposite party No. 1 wrote the words “no warranty due to castrol active change oil”. Then the complainant objected and requested to delete the same but the Manager of opposite party No. 1 refused to do so. It is thus alleged that it is clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint to seek the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties are directed to realize their mistake and delete the note from the service book and to use only standard mobil oil in future.
2) To pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not appeared despite their service so they were proceeded against exparte on 9.6.2015. However on 22.6.2015 Sh. J.K. Kapil Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 but the case was already listed for evidence of the complainant and the counsel for the opposite party No. 1 was allowed to join the proceedings at the stage of evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of service book Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 18.4.2015 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Bansal Ex.OP-1/1, copy of battery warranty card Ex.OP-1/2, photographs of big packing Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. The first plea of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 is using the substandard mobil oil in servicing the vehicle which has caused problems in his vehicle. However in affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Sanjeev Bansal the para No. 13 reads as under.-
“That it is denied that deponent's firm use non standard/ sub standard mobil oil. The deponent's firm always used small or big packing of prescribed engine oil. Photograph of small and big packing attached herewith, which is Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4. The deponent's firm give option to buy oil from small packing of prescribed brand or buy oil in necessary quantity from a big packing of prescribed brand. Small packing is usually costlier.”
8. Apart from this it is relevant to refer para No. 10 of the ibid affidavit which also reads as under.-
“That it is denied that engine of the motorcycle of the CC started making a noise or got developed other problems.”
Moreover the plea of the complainant is not substantiated by producing any expert evidence by the complainant. In the absence of any inspection report on the record it cannot be held that the mobil oil used by the opposite party No. 1 was substandard.
9. Coming to the second plea of the complainant qua the problems of the motorcycle in question, again the complainant failed to place on record any report of the mechanic to indicate that the motorcycle of the complainant was suffering from the problems as pointed out by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove this allegation.
10. The third point is the deleting of the warranty by the Manager of the opposite party No. 1 by mentioning no warranty on the service book. It is relevant to refer para No. 12 of the affidavit of the Sanjeev Bansal Ex.OP-1/1 which reads as under.-
“That the deponent marked 'No Warranty' in the Service book due to CC compelling to use non prescribed engine oil. Then the CC requested to delete this clause and promised not to insist for using non prescribed oil. Agreeing to CC's request the deponent's firm deleted the 'no warranty' clause by cutting it across, signed and sealed. So the customer's motorcycle is under warranty. The CC has wrongly mentioned that his service book has been marked 'No Warranty' which is clear from CC's own documents Ex.C-2, C-3.”
11. In view of the para No. 12 of the ibid affidavit the apprehension of the complainant that his motorcycle was not under warranty is incorrect. Moreover as per terms and conditions the motorcycle is under warranty as earlier from the date of purchase subject to the compliance of the other terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the warranty are applicable to both the parties and by stretch of any imagination by deleting it in the service book cannot take away the right of the complainant.
12. As a result of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in the booklet provided by the opposite parties to the complainant. However no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
19th Day of August 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
