Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/55

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Giran Automotive - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Joshi

18 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 55 of 01.05.2019

                                 Date of decision                        : 18.10.2019

 

Amrik Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Pal Singh, resident of Village Akbarpur, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Giran Automotive, Chandigarh Road, NH-21, Rupnagar now distributor KKL TVS

2. Manchanda Autos, SCF 49, Phase 5, Sector 59, SAS Nagar, Mohali

3.  

   ...Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Amrik Singh, complainant in person along with his counsel Sh. Deepak Logi, Advocate 

O.Ps. No.1 & 2 exparte

Sh. Anil Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.       Amrik Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Pal Singh, resident of Village Akbarpur, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle in question with the new one or to refund the full amount of the motor cycle; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental, physical and financial harassment; to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of the complaint; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit be also granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice. 

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 27.7.2018, the complainant had purchased a TVS SPORT DURALIFE (BSIV) for his personal use from O.P. No.1. After its purchase, the motor cycle started creating trouble like starting, hard gears and noise coming from the engine. When complainant inquired about these from O.P. No.1 then officials of O.P. No.1 told him that these are minor problems and there is no need to bother about these little things. After few days, the complainant again noticed that problems had again started and the same were not functioning properly as it developed unusual noise/jerks in the running of the engine and even leakage in the engine oil. Thereafter, on 17.12.2018, complainant registered an online complaint on toll free number. After repeated requests, the O.Ps. neither repaired the motor cycle in question as per satisfaction of the complainant nor replace with the new one. Hence, this complaint.    

3.       On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.10.2019. 

 

4.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file this bogus and frivolous complaint against the answering O.P.; that neither the O.P. No.3 has committed any error or inadvertent mistake nor has got any connection with the invoice letter which relates to the purchase of vehicle in question on 27.7.2018 as mentioned in the complaint as the complainant has purchased said vehicle from O.P. No.1, so the question to implead the answering O.P. No.3 as party in the complaint titled above does not arise at all; that territory manager cum authorized signatory of answering O.P. No.2 is competent to do all the necessary acts on behalf of the company and to sign or verify the pleadings as per the authority letter issued by the company in his favour dated 23.7.2019.  On merits, it is stated that if any complaint is lodged by the complainant with the answering O.P. on toll free number then he was advised to him to approach the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, if he has any grievance/problem or technical defects in the vehicle in question for his satisfaction regarding the trouble in the vehicle in question. The complainant is playing in the hands of some unknown persons who are misleading him to unnecessarily harass and humiliate the answering O.P. No.3 without any sufficient cause. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Sunny Kumar, Territory Manager cum Authorized Signatory Exs.OP3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/D and closed the evidence.

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

6.       The complainant Amrik Singh made prayer that he purchased TVS SPORT DURALIFE (BSIV) from O.P. No.1 in the month of July i.e. 27.7.2018 bearing registration No.PB-12-AE-6475. Since the date of purchase the motor cycle started creating trouble in engine, gear problem and noise etc. On 17.12.2018, he sent registered complaint online on toll free number to the O.P. No.1 and on the next day complainant received a call from the official of the TVS Company to visit in the office of O.P. No.1, where his motor cycle was retained for a few days and on return the problem remained as it was. He again complained to the O.Ps. and in the month of January 2019, when complainant had gone to Fatehgarh Sahib and took this motor cycle on the way, the motor cycle stopped. Since then the motor cycle in question is in parking i.e. Shri Ram Cycle Stand, Cycle and Car Store, Morinda. Complainant in support of his claim placed on file the receipts qua the possession of the cycle store since 2/1/2019 to April 2019. Further, he referred Ex.C11, which is receipt of the cycle stand for e period 1.7.2019 to 1.10.2019 qua the motor cycle in question. Lastly prayed that deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands established, the complaint be allowed with costs.

7.       It is pertinent to mention that O.Ps. No.1 & 2 did not appear despite notice. O.P. No.3, which is the manufacturer appeared through Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate, who argued that after going through the entire complaint there is no allegations from the side of the complainant qua the manufacturing of the vehicle. When, no relief is sought against O.P. No.3 then no relief can be granted against O.P. No.3.

8.       Complainant purchased motor cycle in question from O.P. No.1 vide delivery order dated 27.7.2018 against payment of Rs.39,000/-. O.P. No.3 did not oppose qua the sale purchase or the relation relating to the consumer and master. So, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum his territorial jurisdiction.

9.       The main question which is to be determined by this forum is relating to the deficiency, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. or not. Complainant Amrik Singh, placed on file his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A then delivery order dated 27.7.2018 Ex.C12. Further notice to the O.Ps. dated 20.3.2019, copy of the same which is Ex.C2.  Whereas, Ex.C3 are the postal receipts relating to the correspondence. Ex.C4 is the registration of the vehicle in question which is not disputed.

10.     Complainant referred the star piece of evidence which is Ex.C5, this document is invoice regarding repair of the motor cycle by the O.P. There is noting that "tire problem (waffling, rear tyre)

                             Gare Problem (Customer no have transfer use bike gear)

                             Brake Problem - Brake adjustment

                             Oil Leak

                             Rear, tail cover alignment".

                             Again there is invoice/workshop dated 29.12.2018, 30.12.2018                                   in which leakage issue gear problem "

          11.     Then complainant referred the message between him and O.P. no.3          relating to the online complaint. It shows that complainant on various        time requested the O.Ps. Ex.C8 is the copy of free service coupon   Ex.C9 is receipt of cycle stand it proves due to non functioning, the      motor cycle is not road worthy since January till today. Complainant        also placed on file Ex.C12, which shows reading mileage 13,347/-           Km. Beside this, complainant placed on file some other documents          and O.P. No.3 vide which complainant advised to contact Manchanda          TVS i.e. O.P. No.2 and again there is letter dated 30.1.2019 copy of          which is Ex.OP3/C.

          12.     No doubt O.P. No.3 has taken their stand relating to the        manufacturing defect, but the complainant made prayer that when        there is a persistent problem in gear.

          13.     Then certainly if the functioning of the motor cycle is not proper then      itself proves defect of manufacturing company. More so, O.Ps. No.1 &   2 did not appear despite notice. During the course of arguments, Sh.      Anil Sharma, counsel for O.P. no.3 made clear that manufacturer had      on various times given directions to the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 for the   necessary repair.

14.               Complainant appears to be a poor person, he arranged the money and           purchased the motor cycle on 27.7.2018 with payment of Rs.39,000/-.           Thereafter, on various times visited the O.P. No.1 and the agency   which noted the problems in its invoice Ex.C5 & Ex.C6. Now the   motor cycle is in parking stand Morinda, since the beginning of        January 2019 till today. O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are impleaded being the sale          point/agent and they did not appear. In this way, the evidence against   O.Ps. No.1 & 2 is un-rebutted.

15.               Appreciating the invoice Ex.C5 & Ex.C6, various correspondence with the O.Ps. It proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. The claim of O.P. No.3 is without merit as the learned          counsel argued that there is no manufacturing defect and for any of      the trouble O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are the responsible. But this part of the           argument is without merit because O.P. No.1 & 2 are the agent of the      O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.3 is duty bound to take care the       customer/consumer through their sale agent. So, the complaint   deserves to be allowed being deficiency fully established.

16.               When deficiency is proved then the forum is to appreciate whether           again           complainant is to be directed to approached the O.Ps. No.1 & 2     is not proper as O.Ps. No.1 & 2 did not bother to follow the directions      of the O.P. No.3. In these circumstances, it is better to impose           penalty upon OPs.

17.               In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands allowed       with the directions to the O.Ps. No. l to 3 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the    complainant towards repair, Rs.2000/- litigation charges and      Rs.1500/- as parking charges. The responsibility of O.Ps. No.1 to 3 is   joint because OP No.3 acted though in the capacity of manufacturing company. They are liable to pay jointly and severally. The           complainant is also directed to repair the motor cycle in question   from outside of the TVS Service Station.   

18.              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                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.18.10.2019                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER