Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/59

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhakhra Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 59 of 02.05.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    28.08.2019

 

 

Amarjit Singh aged about 65 years, son of Sh. Desa Singh, resident of Village Kotla Nihang, Tehsil & District Ropar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1.  

2. Bajaj Auto Limited Complex Mumbai, Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune411035

                  ...Opposite Parties

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh.Ashish Dabb, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh.Mandeep Moudgil, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 &2

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.  Amarjit Singh aged about 65 years, son of Sh. Desa Singh, resident of Village Kotla Nihang, Tehsil & District Ropar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle in question Platina with new one; to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 22.3.2018, the complainant had purchased the motor cycle Platina from the O.Ps. vide bill No.895. From the very first day of its purchase, the complainant started facing problem in the gear of the motor cycle and self of the motor cycle was also not working. He immediately complained the matter to the O.P and asked to repair the same or replace the motor cycle with new one with no mechanical fault. The complainant visited the O.P. many times but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint.

3.    On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vague; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complainant has concealed many things and there is neither any defect in the vehicle nor there is any deficiency in service. On merits, O.Ps stated that had there been any problem in the vehicle either delivery of the vehicle should not have been taken by the complainant at the time of delivery and even while taking the registration papers, the complainant should have lodged the complaint. However, there is no such complaint at all filed at both the point of junctures.  While taking delivery, the dealer checks the vehicle, also the purchaser/complainant also drives the vehicle and only upon satisfaction purchases the vehicle- thus these points also proves that the vehicle was in a perfrect condition at the time of delivery, also at the time of taking registration papers and thereafter at the time of Pollution Certificate. It is further stated that once the vehicle was delivered to the customers after its sale, the opposite parties do not have any control or knowledge as to how the vehicle is being used and who all are using it.  Whether it is being maintained properly or whether all the tips given for the efficient performance of the vehicles is followed by the customers, etc, these are some of the vital questions on which there is no evidence.  In the absence of it, and based only on the mere allegations of the complainant no adverse orders should be passed which will be in the prejudicial interest of the opposite parties. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint has been denied and prayer have been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. have tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Amrik Singh, Manager, Bhakhra Service Station Private Limited Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/L and closed the evidence.  

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Ashish Kumar Dabb, argued that Amarjit Singh, purchased one motor cycle Platina on 22.3.2018 against bill No.895 from the O.P. No.1 and the registration No.PB-12-AE-2821. Since the date of purchase, the motor cycle started creating trouble and got repaired from the O.Ps many time. Despite the fact, that repeatedly visiting the workshop though the motor cycle was not roadworthy. When new motor cycle is purchased and giving trouble in service, amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint be allowed with costs.

7.    Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2 argued that the fact of purchase of the motor cycle dated 22.3.2018 from the O.P. No.1 by the complainant is admitted. He also argued that as and when the complainant visited the workshop of the O.P. No.1 then his grievance/trouble qua the working of the motor cycle was removed. The learned counsel referring the documentary evidence prayed to dismiss the complaint on merit with cost.

8.    Complainant Amarjit Singh is resident of Village Kotla Nihang, District Ropar. O.P. No.1 sold the motor cycle and his office is at Ropar District. So on the point of territorial jurisdiction O.P. No.2 has not opposed. So the complaint is within time and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

9.    Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service or not. In Para No.4 of the complaint are given the details qua the date of purchase is 22.3.2018 and trouble reported on 23.4.2018, 23.10.2018 and 13.5.2019 relating to the free service. He also pointed out some other deficiency. To prove the deficiency the complainant tendered sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, sale letter Ex.C1 dated 22.3.2018, which proves the cost of the motor cycle of Rs.46,835/-. Ex.C2 is the photocopy of the registration bearing No.PB-12AE-2821 then the policy Ex.C3. On this score, the complainant closed the evidence. Whereas, the O.P No.1 beside the affidavit placed on file Ex.OP1/B vehicle history recorded on 23.4.2018, then 28.07.2018, 23.10.2018, 04.03.2019 and written request on behalf of OP No.1 to the complainant pointing out the needful problem. OP No.1 also placed on file photocopy of the job card dated 23.04.2018, 14.07.2018, 28.07.2018, 20.08.2018, 23.10.2018, 25.12.2018, 04.03.2019 and 13.5.2019 Ex.OP1/E to Ex.OP1/L.

10.  OPs counsel Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, made prayer that qua the functioning of the motor cycle, the complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion. At the same time, the complainant counsel prayed that when the entire job cards are placed on file since the date of purchase till the filing of the complaint then why the OP need any more expert opinion. Rather Ex.OP1/E to Ex.OP1/L itself proves the deficiency which is pointed out regarding gear shift etc.

11.  This forum has gone through the entire pleadings and  documentary evidence placed on file and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and has finally come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the motor cycle Platina on 22.3.2018 with payment of Rs.46,835/- beside the insurance and RC charges. Ex.OP1/E to Ex.OP1/L proves, the complainant had been visiting to the O.P. No.1 relating to the improper functioning of the motor cycle.  So no expert opinion is required. Above said documents speaks the complainant had not purchased a new motor cycle rather he purchased a disease. Time and again visiting the workshop of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. So, the complaint deserves to be allowed. When the complaint deserves to be allowed then the question arises in what way the claim of complainant is to be satisfied. If ordered to O.Ps. qua the exchange of new motor cycle then it will not be proper. Further if ordered to repair then the complainant will not be satisfied. In these circumstances, the deficiency is ordered to be covered through monetary benefit.

12.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.15,000/- in lump sum to the complainant with regard to deficiency/repair of the motor cycle in question. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. The complainant is at liberty to get the motor cycle in question repaired from the outside.

13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.28.08.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER