Pardeep Kumar Kushwaha             Vs.                             1. Dewan Bajaj.

                                                                                              2. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

          Arguments are heard on behalf of the parties.

We proceed to decide the matter.

As per averments made in the complaint, complainant had purchased a motor-cycle (Pulsar 200NS) bearing registration No.               DL-3SCH-1863, Engine No. JLZCCF18440, Chasis No. MD2A36FZZCCF18700, make Bajaj from the OP on 11.11.2012 and after the vehicle plied 60 kms., a peculiar voice had started coming out of the engine due to which he had taken the vehicle to the showroom on 13.11.2012; vehicle was sent to the workshop and he was told that he could ply the vehicle and the defect shall be seen at the time of service; on 16.11.2012, the vehicle was given for service but he was told that engine would be opened on which he asked the OP not to open the engine and to change it. In this regard complaint No. CR 114969 was lodged but despite this the vehicle was repaired and charges were taken from the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

          In the reply OP-1 has inter-alia stated that the OP manufacturing company will repair or replace the vehicle free of charge if the same has manufacturing defect within a period of 2 years or 30,000 km. whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated in part A, B and C. It is stated that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop on 16.11.2012 and 17.02.2013 and the defects were duly rectified and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in good condition. As per job card dated 16.11.2012, the vehicle had already run 492 kms. within 4 days and 4859 km. as per job card dated 17.02.2013. It is stated that no material parts were replaced. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

OP-2 has also filed it reply and has denied the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has not filed the rejoinders.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Ram Prabhaw Yadav, Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

On 15.12.2016, the complainant told that gasket crankcase in the motor-cycle in question was repaired on 16.12.2012 (date of first service) which could not be repaired without opening the engine and hence there was a manufacturing defect in the motor-cycle. He was directed to file some expert opinion in this regard but, however, till date, he has not filed any report.

Hence, there is no evidence on the record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

Today, the complainant has made a statement that the vehicle in question had run 36000 kms. Therefore, this is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 08.11.2017.