BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.260 of 2014 Date of Institution: 7.7.2014
Date of Decision: 23.1.2015
Baldev Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of Village Sanda Mauja, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Gyan Honda, G.T. Road, Ferozepur Cantt, through its authorized signatory.
2. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Private Limited, Plot No.1, Sector No.3, IMT Manager District Gurgaon-122050, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Gurmeet Sandhu, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Vikas Dhawan, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle make Honda Shine having Engine No.JC36E7166375, on 26.8.2012 for an amount of Rs.53,609/-, which was
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\2//
manufactured by opposite party No.2. After few days of purchasing the motor cycle in question, there was some defect in the wheel of motor cycle, and the complainant immediately brought the matter in the notice of opposite parties, but opposite party No.1 showed their inability by saying that the wheel was readily not available in the stock and further assured that as and when the wheel is available in the stock, opposite party No.1 will replace the same. Further it has been pleaded that at the time of regular service of motor cycle, the employees of the opposite parties also made a writing to this effect in the service book of the complainant and in their record. Due to the defect of wheel, the tyre of the motor cycle was also damaged. Further it has been pleaded that when the complainant brought the matter again in the notice of the opposite parties, the opposite parties refused to replace the wheel and tyre in question and obtained an amount of Rs.3857/- from the complainant. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.1300/- for purchasing the tyre of motor cycle in question. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not give any reply to the said notice nor they returned the price of wheel and tyre to the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that opposite parties be directed to return the price of wheel and tyre amounting to Rs.5157/-. Further a sum of Rs.85,000/- as
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\3//
compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the complainant brought his vehicle to the agency/show room of opposite party No.1 for 5th paid service i.e. on 28.7.2013 and at that time, the motor cycle has already run 10316 KM and he complained about the bubbling of the vehicle at the speed of 60/70 KM per hour. Therefore, the vehicle was checked and test drive was taken by expert mechanic and it was found that its rear alloy-wheel was having defect i.e. was damaged, which resulted into bubbling of the vehicle. The complainant was advised that rear alloy-wheel has to be changed and it was also told that the wheel was not covered in warranty and guarantee as per the terms and conditions of opposite party No.2, but the complainant did not bother to get the alloy-wheel changed with new one. Thereafter, the complainant came for 6th paid service on 8.11.2013 and by that time, the motor cycle had covered 19523 KM and as per purchase bill of alloy-wheel, the complainant purchased the alloy-wheel from opposite party on 11.3.2014 and almost after 7-1/2 month of the advise of the expert and the delay in changing the alloy-wheel and even as the vehicle has already covered 19523 KM, the tyre of the vehicle might have lived its life or otherwise as he has not changed the alloywheel in time as per the advise of the expert, this might be also the reason the tyre
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\4//
outlived its life. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, Dharamjit Singh, Proprietor of Gyan Honda tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 & 2/1 to Ex. OP-1 & 2/9 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle make Honda Shine, manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 for Rs.53,609/- on 26.8.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that after few days of the purchase of the said motor cycle, there was some defect in its wheel, which was immediately brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but opposite party No.1 was lingering on the replacement of the wheel on the pretext of non-availability of the same in its stock and due to defect in the wheel, tyre of the motor cycle was also damaged, but ultimately the opposite parties refused to replace the wheel and tyre in question free of cost and wrongly charged an amount of Rs.3857/- for replacement of the wheel from him and he also had to pay an amount of Rs.1300/- for purchasing the tyre of the
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\5//
motor cycle in question. In their written reply, the opposite parties have admitted that the complainant brought his vehicle to the agency/show room of opposite party No.1 for 5th paid service on 28.7.2013 and he complained about the bubbling of the vehicle at the speed of 60/70 KM per hour; the vehicle was checked and test drive was taken by expert mechanic and it was found that its rear alloy-wheel was having defect, which resulted into bubbling of the vehicle. The complainant has also placed on the file an expert opinion as Ex.C-8 issued by one Daljit Singh, Proprietor of Nand Auto, Shop No.7, Udham Singh Chowk, Ferozepur City, vide which the said expert has stated that he has been doing the work of repairing the motor cycles for the last more than seven years and on 11.3.2014, Baldev Singh visited his shop and he checked his motor cycle make Honda Shine bearing Engine No.JC36E7166375, Chassis No.ME4JC36JG7111280 and found that there was a manufacturing defect in the rear wheel of the said motor cycle and rear tyre was totally damaged due to manufacturing defect of wheel. Opinion of said Daljit Singh has also been fully corroborated with his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-6. The said expert opinion has not been controverted by the opposite parties in an unequivocal terms. The said expert has also not been subjected to cross-examination. The opposite parties have not produced any counter affidavit/opinion of any expert to shake credibility of the expert, whose affidavit as well as opinion has been
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\6//
placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8, respectively. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that the rear alloywheel and tyre of the motor cycle in question had become defective/damaged due to its mishandling by the complainant. Replacement of the rear alloywheel and tyre of the motor cycle within the warranty period has also been admitted by the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties were not justified in charging the complainant for replacement of the rear allowwheel and tyre of the motor cycle in question. The opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant. Photo copy of Tax Invoice Ex.C-3 reveals that opposite party No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.3857/- as cost of the wheel and besides this the complainant had also spent an amount of Rs.1300/- for purchase of the tyre. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.3857/- plus Rs.1300/- i.e. total Rs.5157/- to the complainant. The complainant has to file the present complaint by engaging a counsel to seek redressal of his grievance, therefore, the opposite parties are also liable to pay litigation expenses to the complainant.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5157/-, which was spent by the complainant for replacement of rear wheel and tyre of the motor cycle in question, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per
C.C. No.260 of 2014 \\7//
annum from the date of replacement of the wheel and tyre i.e. 11.3.2014 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
23.1.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
