DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 303 of 29.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 14-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Ruldu Ram S/o Sh. Joti Ram R/o C/o Mittal Cloth House, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Empire Automobiles, 3029 Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India (Pvt) Ltd. Plot No. 1, Sector 3, I.M.P. Manesar, District Gurgaon.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. D.C. Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the Clutch plates of his scooter Honda Eterno at their cost; refund the charges received from him at each and every time of repair of this vehicle; pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 has its workshop cum office for the sale of scooters of opposite party No. 2 at Bathinda. He (complainant) had purchased one Scooter (Honda Eterno) from the opposite parties on 27.3.07. Registration No. PB-03Q-1677 was allotted to it. Six free services were to be provided by the opposite parties. He had availed two free services. On 14.8.07 he had approached the opposite parties for third free service. Clutch plates were causing problem. Opposite party No. 1 after opening them told that there was manufacturing defect in them. They were repaired with the understanding that he should go ahead with the scooter. If there was complaint concerning clutch plates, they would be replaced within the period of warranty. In the month of September, 2007, opposite parties had called him for removal of the defect in the clutch plates. He had taken the scooter at the workshop on 9.9.07. Clutch plates were again repaired. Rs. 121/- were illegally charged. Despite this, problem which clutch plates was causing was not over. Opposite party No. 1 again asked him to bring the scooter at the workshop. Accordingly scooter was brought at the workshop on 25.10.07. Job card No. 515 was prepared. After opening the scooter, he was told that clutch plates would be replaced against payment of Rs. 1,000/- and labour charges. He raised protest saying that clutch plates were defective prior to 14.8.07 and he was complaining since then. Opposite parties refused to deliver the scooter to him after replacing clutch plates. He did not agree to pay Rs. 1,000/- and labour charges. Scooter is lying with opposite party No. 1. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is frivolous and vexatious and complainant has distorted facts and concealed material information. According to them, the scooter Eterno was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 on 27.3.07. They deny that opposite party No. 1 had told that clutch plates have manufacturing defect. Inter-alia their plea is that replacement of clutch plates does not come under warranty. Vehicle was brought on 14.8.97 for routine service. After service, it was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction. Vehicle was produced for check-up on 12.9.07 after driving it upto 9112 Kms. No problem was found in it. A sum of Rs. 121/- was charged for labour and repair charges of Clutch and cost of Nut, Lock 14 MM LH. Vehicle was again produced on 25.10.07 after it was driven upto 10747 Kms within a period of approximately seven months. On examination, it was found that replacement of Clutch plates was required. It was not required due to any manufacturing or inherent technical defect. Rather it was on account of wear and tear due to constant usage. This fact was explained and only then charges whatsoever were reasonable and genuine were demanded. Vehicle the Clutch plates of which are defective cannot given an excellent performance of 10747 Kms. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of receipt No. 3332 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of delivery challan (Ex. C-3), photocopy of R.C. Of vehicle No. PB-03Q-1677 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of his driving licence (Ex. C-5), photocopies of Job Cards (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8), photocopy of invoice (Ex. C-9), his another affidavit (Ex. C-10), photocopy of warranty policy (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-12).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties photocopies of Job Cards (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2), photocopies of Invoices (Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4), affidavit of Sh. Jossaf (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Owner's Manual (Ex. R-6) and photocopies of certificates (Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-12) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Admittedly Scooter Honda Eterno manufactured by opposite party No. 2 was purchased by the complainant from its authorised dealer i.e. opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 35,398/-. Copy of the receipt and delivery challan are Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 respectively. This vehicle was got registered and copy of the registration certificate is Ex. C-4. As per of the warranty policy, copy of which is Ex. C-11, opposite party No. 2 has undertaken to replace or repair at their authorised workshops, free of charge, within a period of 24 months from the date of sale or until the vehicle has been driven for 24,000 Kms. of run whichever event occurs first, such part or parts thereof as may be found, on examination , to have manufacturing defect.<br /> 8. As per averments in the complaint, complainant intends to say that there was inherent defect/manufacturing defect in the Clutch plates and opposite parties are liable to replace them as the scooter is within warranty. In our view, complainant has failed to establish it. First free service of the scooter was availed by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 on 7.4.07. He did not make any complaint concerning the Clutch plates. Oil was replaced and scooter was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was brought for second service on 5.6.07 when it was driven upto 3960 Kms. No defect in the clutch plates was pointed by him. Oil was replaced. It was brought for third service on 14.8.07 when it had 7878 Kms run as is evident from Ex. R-1. No complaint of clutch plates was reported. Again it was brought to opposite party No.1 on 12.9.07 as is clear from Ex. C-7 when it was driven upto 9112 Kms. This was for the first time when problem regarding clutch plates was disclosed. After doing the needful, vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction. On 25.10.07, scooter was brought to opposite party No. 1 and copy of the Job Card is Ex. C-8. Complaint regarding Clutch plates etc., was made. Upto that date scooter was driven upto 10747 Kms. In such like, circumstances, defect in the Clutch plates cannot be concluded to be on account of manufacturing defect/inherent defect. Had their been manufacturing defect in the Clutch plates, the vehicle could not run upto 10747 Kms. Rather it appears that problem in the Clutch plates was due to normal wear and tear and use of them. Ex. R-6 is the copy of the Owner's Manual of Honda Eterno according to which replacement of Clutch plates does not come under the warranty. If opposite parties did not replace the clutch plates free of cost, there is no deficiency in service on their part.. If complainant was not willing to get the Clutch plates replaced against charges, he could take the scooter with him. Mere fact that he left the scooter with opposite party No. 1, is no ground to fasten the liability on the shoulders of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. Complainant is craving that opposite parties be directed to make payment of the charges which have been received by them at each and every time when scooter was taken to them as they could not charge any amount from him during the period of warranty. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that opposite party No. 1 was well within its right to claim the amount charged by it. <br /> 10. We have considered the respective submissions. As discussed above, scooter was brought to opposite party No. 1 for first free service on 7.4.07. Ex. C-9 is the copy of the invoice according to which a sum of Rs. 123/- was charged from the complainant for engine oil. Then second service was done. A sum of Rs. 123/- was received from him on 5.6.07 for engine oil as is clear from Ex. R-3. At the time of third service on 14.8.07, Rs. 186/- were received from him as price of Spark Plug PRZ9HC and Honda engine oil as is clear from Ex. R-4. On 7.4.07, 5.6.07 and 14.8.07 opposite party No. 1 did not receive any amount as labour charges for the new parts. Opposite party No. 1 was well within its rights to charge the price of oil and small parts such as Spark Plug etc. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in receiving charges on 7.4.07, 5.6.07 and 14.8.07. On 12.9.07, scooter was brought to opposite party No. 1 and it charged Rs. 121/- as is clear from Ex. C-12. This amount includes Rs. 112/- towards labour charges. On 12.9.07 scooter was well within the warranty. Problem of Clutch plates was reported by the complainant. Since scooter was within the warranty and six free services were to be rendered by the opposite parties, they could charge Rs. 112/- towards labour charges. They could charge Rs. 9/- only. Rendering of service within the warranty does not mean that nothing is to be done by the service provider. If service is to be rendered, labour has to be employed. There was no justification for receiving labour charges to the tune of Rs. 112/- on 12.9.07. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter and they are liable to refund this amount to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 12.9.07 till payment.<br /> 11. Complainant is also craving for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental pain and sufferings. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief of refund of the amount of Rs. 112/- alongwith interest which has been referred to above. Out of interest and compensation, one can be allowed.<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Refund Rs. 112/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 12.9.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 14-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />