BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.436 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 29.11.2022

                Date of Decision: 19.07.2024

Yamini aged 21 years, wife of Charanjit, resident of H. No.220, Ravidass Colony, Kaki Pindi, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       DADA Motor Enterprises LLP (13185), BMC Chowk, Jalandhar,    Punjab, India.

2.       Bajaj Auto, Head Office at Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune          411035

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. A. K. Walia, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased one new vehicle Pulsar RS 200 bearing registration no. PB08EY8074, Chassis no.MD2A55FX3NCD05275, Engine No.DTXCND54468, Date of Registration 28.08.2022, Model 2022 from the OP and on account of continuously fault found in above mentioned Motor Cycle, the complainant has been compelled to file the present complaint. The consideration amount of the above said vehicle is worth Rs.2,06,785/-. The total EMI amount is Rs.2,94,277/-. The complainant executed finance from the Bajaj Finance Ltd, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar with down Payment worth Rs.35,000/- and balance payment @ Rs.5994/- (including Rs. 600 extra charges) and monthly EMI is worth Rs.5,389/- per month for 48 months, out of two EMI has been paid by the complainant (worth 5,500/-). The complainant found fault from the first day from the date of purchase of above mentioned vehicle regarding RPM Drop, Ignition switch not work and Bike become Stop while running, washing, the complainant told the same to the OP and asked to exchange the vehicle but OP agreed for servicing of the fault and send the vehicle to the service centre, where concerned officials found ECU fault and for the exchange of ECU unit, complainant had wait for approx. 50 days. The fault did not solve and after it the complainant visited at the service centre of the opposite party for four times. Fault of the above mentioned vehicle stood as it is and after it complainant visited six time, new fault has been occurred as fuel pump voice and radiator not work. Due to servicing the fitting of the body of the above mentioned vehicle has been loosed and vibrate the same and complainant faced lots of harassment and mental stress without any single fault. The complainant lodged e-mail regarding the whole fault occurred in newly purchased vehicle but no response has been received from the opposite party till the date. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and the OP is guilty of deficiency in service, the OP was bound to exchange with new vehicle as purchased vehicle found faulty or claim amount equal to the Down Payment amount alongwith EMIs amount which has been paid by the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,94,277/-. Further OP be directed to pay damage for mental tension, agony, harassment and consequences against not depositing EMI and further complainant's husband has lost his white Collar Job as Marketing and field executive at NTT Data Private Limited India, Jalandhar and due to lost job, the complainant is facing and tackling financially problems 1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as misc. expenditures.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that there is neither any deficiency in service, nor any unfair trade practice and nor any negligence on the part of the OPs as such the complainant of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the Motor Cycle as such the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. It is further averred that due to the own wrongs, omissions and commissions on the part of the complainant the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant herself failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the warranty as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is not driving the Motor Cycle as such the complainant has no knowledge about the working of the Motor Cycle. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the Motor Cycle by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle is having some problems, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved that she has purchased one new vehicle Pulsar RS 200 bearing registration no. PB08EY8074 from the OP, vide Ex.C-1 i.e. tax invoice for Rs.1,71,785/-. RC Ex.C-2 was issued to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that he has taken the motorcycle after obtaining the loan and is paying EMI, but despite that the motorcycle was having continuous fault since the date of its purchase. The fault is regarding RPM Drop, Ignition switch not work and Bike become stop while running, washing. The complaint was made to the OPs number of times. The complainant has produced on record the job cards and the emails informing the OPs about the fault, but her grievances was not resolved, whereas the contention of the OP is that the complainant herself did not visit the workshop of the OP, but the motorcycle was sent through some representative on 19.08.2022 and 07.09.2022. The grudge and complaint of the complainant was removed and the delivery of the motorcycle was taken by the representative after satisfying himself. The problem is only due to driving habits of the driver and there is no defect in the motorcycle.

7.                Perusal of the Ex.C-6, the tax invoice shows that the job card is of 08.09.2022 and perusal of the same shows that the labour charges mentioned in this bill are regarding ‘Lathe Work/Lathe Work/998729 and Labor for replaced parts/Replaced Parts:PD351425/998729’. Perusal of Ex.C-7 shows that the invoice for the same purpose is of 19.08.2022 and the labour charges mentioned in this bill are ‘Lathe Work/Lathe Work/998729’. Perusal of Ex.C-8 i.e. First Free Service shows that this is the first free services, in which Charges for Spare Parts replaced that ‘Oil Bajaj DTS-I 20W50 1L-B56 and Oil Filter’ and Labour Charges in details is ‘Chain cleaning and Lubrication//998729 and Consumable Charges//998729’ has been shown. Ex.C-9 is dated 11.10.2022 showing again the problem of Lathe Work/Lathe Work/998729. Ex.C-10 is dated 27.10.2022 showing the status of the vehicle with the OPs as running repair and on 08.10.2022, it is showing as quick repair and on 27.10.2022 is running repair. Similarly, the husband of the complainant sent email to the OP vide Ex.C-11 mentioning therein all the facts and the harassment suffered by him as immediately after the purchase of the Pulsar, it started giving problem, but the problem was never solved. The OP has denied all the facts rather has stated that the fault is due to driving habit. They have not differentiated and explained about the driving habit to show what fault has been made by the driver in driving, which has made the new Pulsar to cause problem and trouble. The Job Cards have been filed on record which shows that under the column of Action, it has been mentioned as adjusted and in the job card dated 10.11.2022 clear cut complaint has been mentioned as mis-firing and bike not start, parts replaced. There is no mention of the fact in all the job cards produced on record by the OPs as Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-9 that the driving of the driver is faulty. It clearly shows that the parts have been replaced and there was some defect in the new Pulsar.

8.                The complainant has purchased the Pulsar on 28.08.2022 and till 10.11.2022, the Pulsar was sent to service centre 4-5 times apart from the service of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for consideration i.e. for Rs.1,71,785/- and she could not enjoy the ride of the vehicle as time and again she was forced to send the vehicle to the OP for repair. Further, the Bajaj company is a well reputed company in the field of  two- and three-wheelers manufacturer and it is their duty to satisfy their customers. It was the duty of the complainant to prove that there is any manufacturing defect, but the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect, but definitely some defect is there for which the complainant had suffered a lot. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The OP is directed to repair the vehicle, if any fault is brought to his notice, without any charges to the satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order. The compliance (compensation and litigation expenses) be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.  

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

19.07.2024         Member                          Member           President