Delhi

North East

CC/233/2018

Sh. Abhishek Deonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Binsar Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.233/18

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Abhishek Deonia S/o Shri Ashok Kumar R/o House No. 163 Jammu Mohalla Maujpur, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Binsar Automobiles, 954-E, 100 Feet Road, Babarpur Extension Shahdara Delhi 110032   T.V.S Motors D-3,4 Sector 10 Second Floor Noida	Opposite Parties

 

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

05.11.2018 10.03.2023 13.04.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain , 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 he purchased a two wheeler vehicle make TVS Jupiter on 28.06.17 vide Registration No. DL 5S BB5584, Engine no. EG4EH1921364, Chassis no. MD626EG41H1E47144 and after some days of purchasing, the engine oil starts leaking. The Complainant took his TVS scooter to service centre on 01.07.17 where officials of Opposite Party advised him that they will repair it on the first service. On 09.07.17 the Complainant again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party as the engine oil of his TVS is completely drained and they advised to do the service. The first service is to be done on 500 kms or after one month but they serviced his TVS after 351 kms and 10 days for which he had to pay Rs. 589/-. After service the Complainant again faces the problem of oil leakage and he again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party on 19.07.17 and they took only Rs. 10/- and repaired his TVS. The engine oil again starts leakage and he again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party on 28.08.17 where officials of Opposite Party advised to fill nitrogen in the TVS tyres and costs him about Rs. 50/- and after some days engine oil again starts leaking and he again took his TVS to service centre where they told him that his engine guarantee is valid till June 2022 and they repair that problem on next due service i.e. on 28.10.17. The Complainant states that he faces many problems as he got warning from his company, and his mother also got angry upon him and he also met with an accident due to same. After accident the Complainant took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party and requested to repair the oil leakage problem and on 30.09.17 he got his TVS back for which he had paid Rs. 280/-. The engine oil of his TVS again starts leaking and he took his TVS again to service centre where they had done second service of his TVS which costs about Rs. 395/-. On 11.11.17 he again visited the service centre for the same problem and the officials of service centre of Opposite Party replaced the oil seal by charging Rs. 40/-. On 22.11.17 he again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party for the same problem and again the oil seal is changes for which he had to pay Rs. 28/-. On 09.12.17 he again took his TVS to the service centre of Opposite Party for the same problem and the official of Opposite Party changed the bolt and charged Rs. 104/- and give assurance that the problem of oil leakage will not occur again. The problem occurred again and the free service was due for 25.06.18 but he had to pay Rs. 455/- for paid service on 04.01.18.  On 14.01.18 he again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party for same oil leakage problem and they charged Rs. 85/- as labour charges. The Complainant stated that his TVS stared to show other problems for which he took his TVS to service centre on 11.04.18 where they charges Rs. 1,394/-. On 19.04.18 he again took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party for oil leakage problem where they change two bolts and charged him about Rs. 57/- .The  Complainant stated that due to oil leakage problem a new problem occurred in his TVS as his TVS speed is reduced and moves like an bicycle for which he took his TVS to service centre of Opposite Party where they told him that the man shaft of TVS was damaged and oil seal and many other parts got changed and he got his TVS after two days on 08.05.18 for which he had to charged Rs. 592/-. After visiting the Opposite Party the same problem occurred again and again and his TVS does not got repaired and the Complainant had to face many problems. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.  He has prayed to refund the cost of vehicle in question i.e.  Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. He further prayed for Rs. 15,000/- towards legal expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their written statements. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the complaint is not maintainable. It has admitted that the Complainant has purchased a two wheeler in question from it. It is stated that the two wheeler in question does not have any manufacturing defect or problem. It is stated that the two wheeler in question whenever was brought to it, the normal repairs regarding wear and tear were done for which the Complainant has paid small amounts. It is stated that there is not oil leakage in the two wheeler. It is also stated that the two wheeler in question has done more than 13,000 kms.  The Opposite Party No. 2 has also supported the facts mentioned by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the written statement.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3.  The Complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4.  The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

5. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Lalit Gupta, Director M/s Binsar Automobiles at 954 E 100 Feet Road Babarpur Extension Shahdara Delhi 32 wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Jagmohan Pattanayak, Area Service Manager Delhi TVS Motor Company, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that the two wheeler which he had purchased from the Opposite Party No. 1 has problem of oil leakage due to some manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that there is no manufacturing defect in the two wheeler. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had paid small amounts at the time of service of two wheeler. The said repairs/parts were changed due to normal wear and tear. It is their case that the Complainant has to prove that there is a manufacturing defect in the two wheeler and the burden lies upon him to prove this fact. The Opposite Parties have relied upon the judgment in the case of Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Chairman, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2007 CTJ 253(CP), wherein it was held that the petty repairs carried out does not amount to be a manufacturing defect. It is also held that the Complainant has to prove that onus lies upon the Complainant to prove that vehicle has some manufacturing defect.
8. In the present case, the Complainant apart from his evidence has not led any evidence i.e. report of any Expert/Engineer to show that the vehicle has some manufacturing defect. The Complainant has paid small amounts at the time of service of the two wheeler and this does not prove that there was some manufacturing defect as the same was paid on account of the repairs done in respect of normal wear and tear.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
10.  Order announced on 13.04.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President