Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased a motor cycle V 15 bearing Chassis No.MD248Z5GRM02626, Engine No.JHJRGM02424 colour Embony Black (MET) bearing RC No.PB10FR 7549 vide invoice dated 30.03.2016 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.64804/-. Further submitted that right from the beginning, there was noise problem from the rear side of the motor cycle. The complainant made complaints with the Opposite Parties time and again, but to no affect. However, the noise in the motor cycle was continuously increasing day by day. Repeated requests were made to the Opposite Parties either to get rid of this problem or to replace the vehicle which contain manufacturing defect, but to no affect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the total price of the vehicle in question Rs.64,804/- alongwith other charges and also to pay of Rs.1 lakh on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. True facts are that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and whenever the complainant approached the Opposite Parties regarding any service of the vehicle, the same was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and there is no problem in the engine of the vehicle. The alleged problem, if any accrues, is self created by the complainant himself as he is making changes in the RPM of the vehicle. The standard RPM required for smooth running of the vehicle are 1300 ROM to 1500 ROM and when the complainant brought the vehicle for starting problem, then the officials of the Opposite Parties checked the engine of the vehicle and found that RPM of the engine are below the recommended RPM by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties made the engine as per the recommendations of the manufacturer after increasing RPM of the engine as per requirement of the engine then the starting problem of the vehicle vanished. Then the officials of the Opposite Parties requested to the complainant to get the test drive, but the complainant had reduced the RPM and told to the officials of the Opposite Parties that he will run the vehicle at 900 RPM, so from all these facts, it is crystal clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complaint may be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C35 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA, alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he purchased a motor cycle V 15 bearing Chassis No.MD248Z5GRM02626, Engine No.JHJRGM02424 colour Embony Black (MET) bearing RC No.PB10FR 7549 vide invoice dated 30.03.2016 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.64804/-. Further contended that right from the beginning, there was noise problem from the rear side of the motor cycle. The complainant made complaints with the Opposite Parties time and again, but to no affect. However, the noise in the motor cycle was continuously increasing day by day. Repeated requests were made to the Opposite Parties either to get rid of this problem or to replace the vehicle which contain manufacturing defect, but to no affect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and whenever the complainant approached the Opposite Parties regarding any service of the vehicle, the same was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and there is no problem in the engine of the vehicle. The alleged problem, if any accrues, is self created by the complainant himself as he is making changes in the RPM of the vehicle. The standard RPM required for smooth running of the vehicle are 1300 ROM to 1500 ROM and when the complainant brought the vehicle for starting problem, then the officials of the Opposite Parties checked the engine of the vehicle and found that RPM of the engine are below the recommended RPM by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties made the engine as per the recommendations of the manufacturer after increasing RPM of the engine as per requirement of the engine then the starting problem of the vehicle vanished. Then the officials of the Opposite Parties requested to the complainant to get the test drive, but the complainant had reduced the RPM and told to the officials of the Opposite Parties that he will run the vehicle at 900 RPM, so from all these facts, it is crystal clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complaint may be dismissed. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to prove his claim of manufacturing defect by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory or organisation established by or under any law. Moreover, whenever the complainant visited the workshop of the Opposite Party, the best services were provided to the complainant every time and after being satisfied the motor cycle was delivered to him. Perusal of the record shows that not even a single document or job sheet has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce on record any report of some expert of the field to prove that the vehicle in question is having inherent manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such report of some expert, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile & Anr. decided on 6 November, 2012 has held that the report of expert is essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service station for one or two times does not ipso fact prove the manufacturing defect. Due to lack of evidence, the value of the petitioners case evanesces.” Not only this, on the same line, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand decided on 26 May, 2009 also held so. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
