C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/79
COMPLAINANT : Arnab Ganguly,
S/o Ajit Nath Ganguly,
T.P. Banerjee Lane, Chasapara,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
– Vs. –
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs 1) G.P. Auto Centre,
represented by its owner
Samir Pal of R.N. Tagore Road,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, Pin - 741101
2) Director,
Hero Motocorp Ltd.
Plot No. 3, Sector-10,
Integrated Industrial Estate,
Sigcul, Haridwar, Uttarakhand,
Pin - 249403
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 13th October, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Arnab Ganguly is the petitioner and G.P. Auto Centre and Director, Hero Motocrop Ltd. are the OPs. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He is a bonafide resident of Krishnagar practising at Krishnagar Judges’ Court as an advocate. He purchased a Hero Honda motor bike (Glamour F1 Disc Self) at the cost of Rs. 62,798/- on 05.10.12. The bike was duly registered as No. WB 52P 8623. OP No. 1 is the seller and OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of the motor bike. Soon after purchase the said bike the complainant found some problems in its self starting unit and he informed the matter to the OP No. 1 for rectification. OP No. 1 changed the battery on 23.04.13. Unfortunately, even after changing of the battery the problem of the self was not cured. The OP No. 1 stated that an expert from the OP No.2 would come to inspect the bike on 25.06.13 and necessary steps would be taken thereafter. The complainant could not utilize the vehicle due to starting problem. Hence, he suffered mental pain and agony and prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant also prays for a decree for return the entire consideration money of Rs. 62,798/- for the defective motor cycle. The complainant has also prayed cost for the suit.
The opposite party filed written version on 7th October, 2013 and the sum and substance of the written version are as below:-
The complaint is motivated and harassing having no cause of action. It is not maintainable. It has been denied that the complainant chose self starter model motor cycle. It has been admitted that the bike was purchased on 05.10.12 from the OP No. 1, an authorized dealer. Bike was repaired time and again including the self and the OP No. 1 has no negligence. On 22.03.13, the complainant informed about self starter problem and OP No. 1 changed the magnet of the self starter which is within the warranty period. Since then there was no problem found in the bike. The complainant came for servicing of his bike on 20.04.13, 10.07.13 and 24.09.13 and he did not lodge any complaint regarding problem of his bike. Rather he received the bike after servicing with full satisfaction. The complaint is false and frivolous without any reason only to harass of OP No. 1.
From the pleadings of the parties the following points are framed for determination.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OP?
- Point No. 2: Is the OP No. 1 deficient in his service?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the sake of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
PW – 1 is Tushar Bhowmik. He filed affidavit evidence stating that the self of the motor bike was defective. He prescribed the change of the self as a solution of the problem. He did not open the defective part as the motor bike was within the warranty period. During reply to the interrogatories at Para—3 he has stated that he inspected the bike in August, 2013. At Para- 04, he has stated that the self of the bike was cured after changing battery and he did not change the self as the bike was within the warranty period.
OPW-2 is Mithun Das. He filed affidavit stating that the magnet of the self starter was changed on 22.03.13 by opposite party – 1. OP No. 2 is the manufacture of OP No. 1. In reply by OPW-2 of the interrogatories filed by the complainant at Para—5 we find that there is an admission that the bike was within the warranty period. At Para- - 5 it has been stated that:- “On 22.03.2013, the alleged bike was within warranty period. That’s why the magnet was changed. So, a new warranty period shall not be reckoned due the change of the magnet of the alleged bike as the bike is under warranty period i.e., three years or 40,000/- kilometers (whichever is earlier) from the date of purchase of the bike.”
Thus, it is clear that the bike was well within the warranty period of three years from the date of purchase of the bike.
We have meticulously perused the annexed documents, annexure A-1 to
annexure A-1F filed by the OP No 1. We have also gone through the certificate of registration, invoice, and all other documents of the motor cycle filed by the complainant. From the admission of the OP No. 1 and documents filed by the parties, we hold that the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 & 2 both.
We have heard the arguments of Ld. Advocate for both sides. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has prayed for treating the complaint as his written argument and Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 filed written argument on 8th September, 2014.
It has been argued that the service of the bike was given on 03.11.12, 01.02.13, 22.03.2012, 20.04.13, 10.07.13, 24.09.13, 18.12.13 (vide service job cards on the record). It has been further argued that the kilometer of the job card shows that bike was running as usual and it was not sitting idle. On 18.12.13 the kilometer covered by the job card on 7881 kilometers. Thus, the argument that the vehicle could not be used for the purpose of profession by the advocate / complainant does not hold much water and hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed.
Now the question is whether the self starter should be changed by the OP No. 1. In all the job cards A-1 to A-1F we find that the self has been disturbing the complainant from the date of purchasing of the bike. This should not be allowed to continue. The complainant has right to get a new self starter to rectify the problem. The OP No. 1 should change the self starter and replace the old one with a new one. Both OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 are jointly or severally liable for doing this job. It is on record that on 14.06.13 the battery was changed and a new battery was given but that could not solve the problem of the self. Hence the OPs shall change the self. As the service from the date of purchase till date by OP No. 1 was good, it would be not just to order the change of the motor bike or payment of the consideration money. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/79 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP No. 1 with cost of Rs. 500/- and exparte against the OP No. 2. OP No. 1 is directed to change the self starter of the motor cycle registration No. WB 52P8623 within a period of one month from this date and to pay cost of Rs. 500/-. As satisfactory service was given from the date of purchase i.e., on 05.10.12 till date was established we find that no compensation should be imposed.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
