DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 229
Instituted on: 23.05.2017
Decided on: 18.09.2017
Sourav Mittal son of Vijay Kumar Mittal R/O H.No.272, Magazine Street, Ward No.17, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Goverdhan Automobiles, Authorized Dealer, India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Sangrur.
2. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. A-3, Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida, Dadri Road, Surajpur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amandeep Singh, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Exparte.
For OP No.2 : Shri Udit Goyal,Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Sourav Mittal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a motorcycle FZSF1 standard from the OP number 1 on 31.3.2017, which was got duly financed from HDFC Bank, Sangrur. The grievance of the complainant is that after some times, the motorcycle in question developed fuel indication problem and meter problem, as such, he approached OP number 1. The OP number 1 after checking also called the engineer from Chandigarh, who replaced the fuel pump vide job card number 660 dated 2.5.2017. The problems in the motorcycle were not solved, as such he again approached OP number 1 on 9.10.2017, but the same problem still existed. Nothing happened despite serving of legal notice dated 10.5.2017 upon the OPs, as such, the complainant has requested the Ops to replace the motorcycle in question with a new one, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to resolve the problems in the motorcycle or to refund its price along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, the purchase of the motorcycle in question by the complainant on 31.3.2017 is admitted by the OP. It is stated in the reply that the complainant approached OP number 1 for the first time on 2.5.2017 with the problem of fuel indication system, which was duly attended by the service engineer immediately and checked the fuel level in the fuel tank of the motorcycle and after complete examination of the motorcycle found neither any problem in the meter/fuel indication system nor in any part of the motorcycle. It is admitted that though the complainant approached the OP number 1 to get the problems rectified, but any problem in the motorcycle is denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question from OP number 1 on 31.03.2017 vide invoice number 186, as is evident from the copy of retail invoice on record as Ex.C-4 and it is further admitted that during the subsistence of the guarantee/warranty period, there was problem of fuel indication meter in the motorcycle, as such the Ops replaced the fuel pump of the motorcycle in question. The OP number 2 has also produced on record Annexure-C the copy of job card dated 2.5.2017, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that he is not satisfied till the fuel indication problem is solved. Ex.C-1 is the copy of legal notice dated 10.5.2017. We have also perused the copy of warranty card Ex.OP2/1, but a bare perusal of it shows that the OP number 2 has not produced the complete warranty details showing the full details thereof. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why incomplete warranty details have been produced on record. It is worth mentioning here that the OP has not resolved the grievance of the complainant by not repairing the fuel indication system of the motorcycle in question. Further the motorcycle in question developed defects in the very short span of its purchase and even under the warranty period. In view of our above, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to conduct the complete repairs of the fuel indication system or to replace the same with a new one.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to conduct the complete repairs of the fuel indication system or to replace the complete fuel system with a new one within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Ops shall be liable to replace the motorcycle in question with a new one. The OP number 1 is also directed to write a letter to the complainant to call for the motorcycle in question for repairs of the fuel indication system/replace of the fuel indication system and thereafter the complainant shall hand over the motorcycle in question for repairs/replacement of the fuel indication system to OP number 1. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the consolidated cost of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
September 18, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
