Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/119

Harpreet Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garcha Automobiles & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harminder Singh, Adv

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 119 of 18.09.2014

                                 Date of decision               : 30.03.2015

                                                         

Harpreet Saini s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of village Ahemedpur, PO Malikpur,Tehsil & Distt. Rupnagar.

                                                                                       .....Complainant

 

                                                Vs.

 

1. Garcha Automobiles, Nangal Road, Near Sadar Police Station,

    Rupnagar, Tehsil & Distt. Rupnagar through its Proprietor.

2. Royal Enfield (A unit of Eicher Motors Limited), Thiruvettiyur-High

    Road, Thiruvettiyur, Chennai-600019.

 

                                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the                              Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SH. V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                             Sh. Rajinder Singh Advocate, counsel for the

                             complainant

                   Sh. Kesar Singh Advocate, counsel for the Opposite

                   Parties

 

 

ORDER

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT           

                   Sh. Harpreet Saini has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       Either to replace the motor cycle purchased by him with a new one or to return the price thereof i.e.  Rs.1,00,457/-,

iii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of harassment caused to him,

iv)     To pay Rs.30,000/- spent by him for replacing the spare parts of the said motor cycle ,

v)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 01.05.2014, he purchased a new motor cycle bearing engine No.U3K500EA 384651, chassis No. ME3U3K500EA384651, Model 2014, Make New Bullet STD-Royal Enfiled from the O.P. No.1, which was got insured by him with the Oriental Insurance Company, as per the directions of the O.Ps. Immediately, after its purchase, the said motorcycle started creating trouble, as its meter stopped functioning, its bearing was also defective, its battery was old one, head light & other lights were not functioning properly and it also suffered from so many other defects. Therefore, he immediately complained about the same to the O.Ps., who assured him to remove all the said defects. Accordingly, he took the motor cycle to the show room of the O.P. No. 1 for doing the needful but inspite of the efforts made by the engineer of the said O.P., the problems/defects could not be removed. He then requested the O.P. No. 1 either to replace the motor cycle in question with a new one or to return the amount paid to it for purchase of the same, but the O.Ps. put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The motor cycle in question is still within warranty period and the O.Ps. are legally bound to replace the same with a new one or to refund the price thereof, because they have delivered a defective motor cycle to him. He had paid more than Rs.30,000/- from his own pocket to the O.P No.1, on account of replacing the parts of the said motor cycle, for which no bill was issued by them inspite of his requests. The O.Ps. had given assurance to him that they will return the said amount to him after getting the same from the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the said motor cycle, but they have even failed to pay the said amount to him, for which they are illegally bound. He had also got issued a legal notice on 13.8.2014 upon the O.Ps., but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 filed a joint written statement, taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. On merits, it is stated that on the day of sale of the motor cycle in question, the complainant had taken try and satisfied himself in all respects and after that he had made the payment and issued a satisfaction letter, sale satisfaction index and signed the bill. If there had been any problem in the motor cycle in question, then he would not have purchased the same. When the motor cycle was brought for its service to the O.P. No.1, then its wiring was found cut and damaged by the complainant. He had also installed a high impair horn, leading to damage to the wiring and the battery. According to the terms and conditions of the warranty, claim on the proprietary items like tyres, tubes, spark plugs, battery etc. should be taken up with respective manufacturer or its authorized agent. On 31.10.2014, when the complainant had come for the third service of the motor cycle, it was fit & fine and there was no problem in it, and he was fully satisfied with the services of the O.P. No. 1. It is stated that there is no contract between the complainant and the O.Ps. to replace the motor cycle in question with a new one or to return its price to the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, stating the same to be without any merit.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the O.P. No.1 tendered his affidavit, Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-18, affidavit of Sh. Chander Maney, Territory Service Manager, Ex.OP-19 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the motorcycle, which was purchased by the complainant on 1.5.2014, from the O.P. No.1 got defective, immediately after its purchase, as its meter stopped functioning, its bearing was defective, the battery was old one, the headlights and other lights were also not functioning properly. In order to set it right, he approached the O.P. No.1, to which he had also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards replacement of parts. Inspite of many efforts done by the engineer of the said O.P., the motorcycle could not be set right, from which it is apparent that it suffers from inherent manufacturing defects. He had requested the O.Ps. either to replace the motorcycle with a new one or to refund the price paid by him, but they did not accede to his request. He further submitted that the O.Ps. have sold a defective motorcycle, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part, therefore, the complaint filed by him be accepted.

 

7.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that when the complainant had brought motorcycle in question for service to the O.P. No.1, then it was found by its engineer that he had installed a High Impair Horn, due to which the wiring of the said motorcycle got damaged and battery also got discharged. He further submitted that on inspection of the said motorcycle, no other defect was found in it. Even after filing of the instant complaint i.e. on 18.9.2014, the complainant had brought his motorcycle for the third service to the O.P. No.1 on 31.10.2014 and after service of the same, he had given satisfactory note to the effect that there was no problem in it. This complaint has been filed just to harass the O.Ps. He further submitted that even the complainant did not produce his motorcycle for its inspection, inspite of directions given by this Forum vide order dated 21.1.2015. From this fact it is established that the motorcycle does not suffer from any defect and therefore, he purposely did not get the motorcycle inspected from the engineer concerned. Therefore, the complaint filed by him being without any merit be dismissed with costs.

 

8.                In order to resolve this controversy, whether the motorcycle in question suffers from any defect(s), this Forum vide order dated 21.1.2015 directed the complainant to take his motorcycle for its inspection by Sh. Chander Maney, the Automobile Engineer of  O.P. No.2, but he did not take the same for its inspection, for the reasons best known to him. In the absence of any expert report, this Forum cannot draw inference that the motorcycle in question suffers from defects, as alleged by the complainant. In support of the allegations leveled in the complaint, the complainant has tendered his own affidavit, Ex.C-1, only, but the said self-serving affidavit will not serve any purpose, in the absence of any other cogent & convincing evidence, to prove his case, whereas from the copies of documents produced on record by the O.Ps., it is revealed that the complainant had taken his motorcycle to the O.P. No. 1 for its service and also for minor repairs and the engineer of O.P. No.1 had set his motorcycle right after doing the needful. Even after filing of the instant complaint, he took his motorcycle to the O.P. No.1 for its routine service and after its service, vide Job Card dated 31.10.2014, (Ex. OP-2), he had given satisfactory note to the effect that “I am Fully satisfied with the service. Till today, my motorcycle is fully Fit and Fine. No problem in motorcycle”.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, consequently, the complaint filed by him, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

                   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 30.03.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

(V.K. KHANNA)                              (SHAVINDER KAUR)

              MEMBER                                                           MEMBER.