BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.181 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.04.2015

Date of Decision :24.09.2015

Gurmeet Singh, aged about 49 years son of Sukhdev Singh R/o H.No.13-B, Link Colony, Gali No.2, Link Road, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Dada Motor Garage, BSF Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/ Incharge etc.

2. LML Limited, C-10, Panki Industrial Estate, Site-II, Kanpur-208022, through its Manager/Incharge etc.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Surjit Paul Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 18.7.2014 the complainant purchased a LML Star 150CC Scooter bearing registration No.PB-08CT-3927 vide Chassis No.MD722/EAENE3194786, Engine No.E24E3189169, invoice No.65 for Rs.54,200/- from opposite party No.1. On 17.8.2014 the said scooter started making troubles in shifting the gear box and clutch box. Due to these problems the complainant made complaint to the opposite party and the employee of the opposite party No.1 took the vehicle from the house of the complainant. At that time the scooter was giving the trouble in shifting the gears and the mechanic who had came to the house of the complainant for the above said purpose assured that the said problem will be detected and removed in the workshop of the opposite party No.1. Thereafter they took the said vehicle by giving the said assurance that all these problems will be redressed at the earliest. On 30.8.2014 the complainant was intimated by the official of opposite party No.1 that the problem in the mechanical defect of the engine of the scooter has been detected and the same has been repaired and later on the said scooter will not given any trouble in future while shifting the gear and starting the scooter. At that time the scooter of the complainant did not start properly but even then the mechanic of opposite party No.1 told that this is not a problem and mechanical defect has been removed. He further admitted that there was problem in the gear box of the scooter and the same has been changed and the said problem will not arise in future. As per their assurances the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.290/- as raised by opposite party No.1. However the said scooter was under warranty and the complainant was not supposed to make any payment of the mechanical defect which was already prevalent in the said scooter before its purchase. On 28.12.2014 the above said scooter stopped starting the engine and the complainant again intimated to the opposite party No.1 and they did not entertain any complaint of the complainant nor visited the house of the complainant to see the mechanical defect and unnecessarily harassed the complainant. The complainant was told that they will not repair or remove the defect and told that they have closed their agency from Jalandhar and the opposite party No.2 has opened a new agency at Phagwara District Kapurthala namely New Look Auto and for the said purpose as the complainant had no alternative took the said scooter to Phagwara by arranging the transportation of the scooter. On 31.12.2014 the said workshop of the opposite party No.2 at Phagwara raised the bill of Rs.2811/- and assured that in future the scooter will not give any trouble and all the defects have been removed. The opposite party No.1 without informing to its customer closed its office at Jalandhar which is having its old office and was having name and fame for selling the scooters of LML Vespa and after knowing the said name and fame, the complainant was allured to purchase the said vehicle/scooter, otherwise the complainant would not have purchased the scooter. The opposite party No.2 is also responsible for running a workshop within the area of Jalandhar and also to remove the mechanical defects of the scooter which was prevalent prior to its purchase. The opposite parties No.1 & 2, clearly indicated their attitude, negligence and malafide intention towards the complainant. Till date the said scooter is not in working condition and opposite parties had refused to entertain the complaints regarding the above said scooter of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,54,200/- alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses with interest.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.1 as at present the opposite party No.1 is not the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 and at present New Look Autos, GT Road, Phagwara is an authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 and it has not been impleaded as party in the present complaint, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 as they repaired the scooter and have charged nothing for the warranty parts. It further pleaded that the complainant paid entire amount of Rs.290/- need reply to the extent that it is possible that the scooter of the complainant had been taken to the workshop of opposite party No.1 for periodic servicing and during this period, the engine oil which is mandatorily required to be changed at the time of servicing, was changed and opposite party No.1 had charged the cost of the oil and this in no way, cast any aspersion on the scooter as such. It is wrong that any amount was charged by opposite party No.1 for any service rendered by opposite party No.1 in terms of warranty conditions and as stated above, the amount of Rs.290/- stated to have been paid by the complainant was the cost of engine oil which is evident from the bill dated 30.8.2014 enclosed by the complainant himself. It is wrong that on 28.12.2014, the scooter had stopped and complainant intimated to opposite party No1. but they did not entertain the complaint. It was simply informed to the complainant that the opposite party No.1 had already left the business with LML opposite party No.2. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the averments seems to be part of a self-serving story knit by the complainant taking advantage of the fact situation arising out of the owner of the opposite party No.1 becoming quite old and unable to carry on the business any more and stopping the operation as authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. The averments that the complainant was intimated that the problem in the mechanical defect of the engine of the scooter has been detected and the same has been repaired and later on, the said scooter will not give any trouble in future while shifting the gear and starting the scooter, are wrong, illogical and meaningless and, therefore, denied. It is wrong that on 28.1.2014, the scooter had stopped and complainant intimated to opposite party No.1 but they did not entertain the complaint. It is stated that the complainant had caused an accident to his scooter and there was no mechanical defect in the scooter and the complainant wanted to derive undue advantage of his position but the opposite party No.1 refused to succumb to the pressure tactics of the complainant resultantly, the complainant took the accidental scooter to the workshop of New Look Autos who prepared job card No.6200 dated 31.12.2014. The job card clearly reveals that the complainant's scooter has met with serious accident requiring extensive repairs which were duly carried out by the said workshop and as admitted by the complainant, he paid Rs.2811/- towards repair charges. The averments that the opposite party No.2 is also responsible for running a workshop within the area of Jalandhar and also to remove mechanical defects of the scooter which were prevalent prior to purchase, need reply to the extent that the complainant had already availed service of his choice from New Look Autos, Phagwara and since the scooter has already met with an accident, it is not covered under warranty and, further, there was no inherent mechanical defect in any part of the scooter and whatever requirement arose due to the running of the scooter by the complainant because of his own style of driving, etc, the same were duly attended to and therefore, the allegation that there existed a mechanical defect prior to the purchase are wrong and denied. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OP-A/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the scooter in question vide invoice dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C2 for Rs.54,200/- from opposite party No.1. The complainant has placed on record cash memo dated 30.8.2014 Ex.C3 issued by opposite party No.1. From perusal of this cash memo, it is evident that only Rs.262/- were charged from the complainant for engine oil. He was not charged anything for replacement of any other item. At the time of service, the engine oil is required to be changed. So opposite party did not charge anything and service/repair of scooter on the above said date is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. On the second occasion complainant took the scooter to M/s New Look Autos, GT Road, Phagwara, as by that time opposite party No.1 has stopped working with opposite party No.2 and was not its dealer or authorized workshop. So complainant took the scooter to above said nearest workshop at Phagwara. The abovesaid dealer/workshop issued retail invoice dated 31.12.2014 Ex.C4 for Rs.2811/-. From the perusal of this retail invoice, it is evident that scooter of the complainant had met with an accident. In this retail invoice Front Mudguard Denting and Painting, Side Cover RH Denting and Painting, Front Chassis Denting and Painting are mentioned. These facts clearly shows that scooter of the complainant had met with accident. For accidental repair, the dealer or service centre was supposed to the repair the scooter on chargeable basis. Accidental damage of the scooter is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. So the allegations of the complainant regarding both the above said visits are without any merit. However, counsel for the complainant contended that even after repair, till date the scooter is not in working condition and opposite parties have refused to entertain the complaints regarding the above said scooter. Opposite party No.1 is no longer dealer or authorized service centre of opposite party No.2, who is manufacturer of the scooter. It is not case of the complainant that he took the scooter to the authorized workshop of opposite party No.2 at Phagwara but they refused to render any service in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. The scooter was purchased on 18.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C2 and the present complaint was filed on 29.4.2014 i.e within warranty period.. The opposite party No.2 through its authorized service centre is bound to provide the service to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty.

8. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party No.2 through its service centre is directed to rectify the defect in the scooter of the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty and for this purpose complainant shall take the scooter to the nearest authorized workshop of opposite party No.2. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

24.09.2015 Member Member President