BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 66 of 02.02.2015. Date of Decision: 17.06.2016.
Harpreet Singh S/o. Bahadur Singh, R/o. Village Malakpur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Dada Motors, Near U.K. Palace, G.T. Road, Khanna-141401 through authorized signatory
- Bajaj Autos Ltd., Akuradi, Pune-411035 through authorized signatory
- Guron Automobiles, Chandigarh Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana through authorized signatory.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : In person.
For OPs : Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by claiming that he purchased new motorcycle of Bajaj Platina brand manufactured by OP2 from OP1 vide invoice dated 10.09.2012 for Rs.40,600/-. Ops gave warranty booklet containing conditions that warranty will be for 2 years or up to mileage of 30000KMs , whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale. Within short period of purchase, complainant experienced as if purchased vehicle not giving pickup and is giving low average. Even starting problem was felt by complainant. OP1 was visited many times for prevailing upon it to remove the defects. Signatures of complainant on the job sheets were obtained for showing as if everything was OK. Defects remained despite approach by complainant to Ops many times. Complainant visited OP3 on 19.12.2014, who is also described as authorized dealer of OP2 at the time when motorcycle travelled distance of 25543 kms. OP3 after going through defects and conduct of analysis disclosed as if the vehicle requires extensive repair due to inherent defects therein. Even he disclosed that these defects remained because of the improper repair done by OP1. The vehicle requires engine overhauling, but despite that Ops refused to carry out the repair and replacement of the parts. Repair cost of Rs.6,000/- was to be charged from complainant by OP3 with advice to complainant to contact OP1 for replacement of the parts. After getting that information, complainant visited OP1 for calling upon him to provide replacement of the defective parts free of costs, but they refused. Finding no other alternate, complainant got engine work and replacement of the parts done from OP3 on payment of Rs.5,750/- vide cash memo dated 23.12.2013. Thereafter, complainant lodged numerous complaints with Ops including one lodged on 08.09.2014 and 19.12.2014, but the defects remained un-rectified resulting in paying of the repair charges by complainant. It is claimed that Ops are liable to refund the repair charges of amount of Rs.5,750/- paid by complainant during warranty period. Besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and financial loss as well as litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/-, claimed.
2. In written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded interalia, as if complaint barred by limitation, being filed beyond period of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle and complaint filed just for harassing Ops with intent to extort money. Complainant had been using the vehicle extensively regularly since the date of its purchase as is evident from the mileage covered by the vehicle. No complaint of any kind was lodged with regard to vehicle in question at the time of getting service done. Complainant failed to get recommended engine oil B.G.O. changed as per service manual and as such, he committed breach of terms and conditions of the warranty. Admittedly complainant purchased motor cycle from OP1 on 10.09.2012, but each and every other averment of complaint denied except that the repair of the vehicle may have been got conducted by complainant on payment of Rs.5,750/- vide cash memo dated 23.12.2013. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor they have adopted any unfair trade practice, so prayer made for dismissal of complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and then closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Indermohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R15 and then closed evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
6. Complainant in the complaint or in his affidavit has not disclosed as to after how much period of the purchase of the vehicle, he started experiencing problem in the motor cycle in question. So the particulars in that respect are vague. Though in para no.3 of the complaint, it is mentioned that complainant kept on visiting OP1 on various occasions, but dates of those visits not disclosed and as such, particulars in that respect are also vague. Complainant himself claims in para No.3 of the complaint as well as in para No.4 of his affidavit that his signatures were obtained on job sheet showing everything as OK. If really the motorcycle in question after doing of job work on the basis of job sheets would not have been working properly, then complainant would have recorded noting on the job sheets qua dissatisfaction of the performed job. No such note claimed to be appended on the job sheets and as such, virtually Ops carried out the repairs to the satisfaction of complainant.
7. It is submitted in course of arguments that though complainant visited Ops, 5-6 times for complaining of the problem of emission of voice by the engine, but job for removal of that defect was not performed, but no such record has been produced.
8. Ex. C1 is the invoice showing as if vehicle in question was purchased by complainant for consideration of Rs.40,600/-on 10.09.2012. Ex. C2 is the cash memo dated 23.12.2013 showing as if estimate of repair of Rs.6,678/- prepared by OP3 on 23.12.2013, but Ex. C3 is the cash memo showing as if complainant paid Rs.5,750/- for the carried repair on 23.12.2013 to OP3. This repair was carried out at the time when motor cycle covered mileage of 25543 KMs is a fact borne from contents of Ex. C3 itself. Even if complaints Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 may have been sent by complainant to concerned through postal receipt Ex. C6, but despite that it has to be seen as to whether Ops committed breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty or complainant committed breach of terms and conditions of the warranty. In case breach of terms and conditions of the warranty in improper maintenance of motor cycle committed by complainant, then deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot be found.
9. Certainly document Ex. C7 shows as if Bajaj Platina has warranty of 2 years or of 30,000 Kms, whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale. In Ex. C7 itself, it has been recorded that for details refer to “Warranty: Scope & Limits” given in the manual. That manual has not been produced by the complainant, but same produced as Ex. R15 by Ops. Part-B contained in Ex. R15 provides that no claim for exchange or repair will be considered unless customer ensures that immediately upon detection of the defect, he approaches nearest authorized Bajaj vehicle dealer and the recommended authorized service centre with the concerned vehicle and enables him to remove and dispatch part/parts attributing to the manufacturing defects to the company. Ex. R2 is invoice cash bill dated 08.11.2013 showing that AMC services performed free of costs virtually. In Ex. R2 itself, it has been mentioned that complainant refused to get battery checked and even he refused for brake clean and polish. Even in job sheet Ex. R3 of 28.08.2013, it is mentioned as if AMC service provided, but complainant refused for polish and battery check up. Bill Ex. R4 of 15.11.2013 shows as if cleaning and brake shoe/disc pad replacement was done. Job sheet Ex. R5 of 06.08.2013 shows as if service by doing work of Grease Lethon etc. was done. Warranty service through job sheet Ex. R6 dated 10.07.2013 was provided free of costs. Likewise warranty service dated 21.06.2013 through invoice Ex. R7 was provided free of costs. Job sheet Ex. R8 dated 14.06.2013 discloses as if AMC service was done against charging of Rs.2,200/-. 3rd free coupon service of 27.04.2013 was done through invoice Ex. R9, whereas 2nd free coupon service was done through invoice Ex. R10 dated 26.02.2013. However, 1st free coupon service was provided to complainant through invoice Ex. R11 dated 30.09.2012. On 30.07.2014 and 05.07.2014 free service was done. Details of history given in Ex. R14. Entry at serial no.1 of Ex. R14 corresponds to Ex. R11, whereas entries at serial no.2 to 10 of Ex. R14 corresponds to Ex. R10, Ex. R9, Ex. R8, Ex. R7, Ex. R6, Ex. R5, Ex. R3, Ex. R2 and Ex. R4. As free coupon services were provided without charging anything and as such, it is not a case in which Ops refused to provide free service. The first three free services were done at the time when vehicle traveled distance of 673 Kms; 4992 Kms and 8638 Kms is a fact borne from entries at serial No.1 to 3 contained in first part of Ex. R14. BGO replaced or BGO top up done during these first three services is a fact borne from contents of Ex. R14. BGO top up even done during the first paid service of 14.06.2013 at the time when the vehicle travelled distance of 13,086Km. However, BGO not replaced in paid service got done by complainant on 06.08.2013, 28.08.2013 and 08.11.2013, when the vehicle covered mileage of 17278, 18624 and 21604 Kms is a fact borne from contents of entries No.7 to 9 contained in first part of Ex. R14. So this produced documentary evidence establishes as if the engine oil not got changed by the complainant in paid services, despite the fact that benefits of warranty available only in case the change of engine oil Bajaj DTS-i 10000 done on frequency for drain interval of 10,000 kms, but engine oil level top-up got done on 5000 kms. This is mentioned on printed page no.32 of Ex. R15. However, engine oil level top up though got done by complainant regularly until paid services of 14.06.2013, but same not got done thereafter, even though the vehicle travelled distance of 21604 kms. So during gap of mileage coverage of 13,086 kms to 21,604 kms, complainant has not got engine oil changed or engine oil level top up got done despite the fact that specific requirement for getting same done at every 5000 kms is there. Part-C of Ex. R15 provides that all consumables like engine oil, fork oil, brake oil, grease etc. are chargeable to customer. Further the warranty clause is not applicable to any defect arising due to above consumables not changed as per schedule or if used other than recommended. As in this case, complainant not shown to have got the engine oil changed or engine oil level top up got done after every travelling of 5000 kms or of 120 days and as such, benefit of warranty not available to complainant in view of the conditions referred above as mentioned at printed page No.32 of Ex. R15.
10. Submission of Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate has no force that complaint barred by limitation because of its being filing on 02.02.2015. Even if date of purchase of the vehicle may be 10.09.2012, but despite that the warranty period is of 2 years and the alleged defects occurred on 23.12.2013 and as such, complaint being filed within 2 years from 23.12.2013 is not barred by limitation. Rather services of OP3 availed on 23.12.2013 is a fact borne from the contents Ex. C3 and Ex. C2 and as such, complaint filed within 2 years from the pleaded accrual cause of action.
11. Certainly defect of pickup or of less average or of starting problem, not mentioned in Ex. R2 to Ex. R5 and nor in the documents produced by complainant and even complainant has not produced any expert for proving these defects and as such, complainant failed to discharge burden of proof placed upon him to establish that virtually the pointed defects occurred or were manufacturing defects. As conditions for availing warranty benefits not complied with by complainant and as such, Ops cannot be held responsible. Deficiency in service as such on the part of Ops not proved and nor it is established that Ops adopted any unfair trade practice.
12. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:17.06.2016.
Gobind Ram.
