Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/195

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Motocorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Loveleen Sharm

12 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         195 of 2017

Date of Institution :    16.06.2017

Date of Decision :      12.02.2019

Karamjit Singh son of Darshan Singh r/o Dashmesh Nagar, Bargari, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Hero Motorcorp Ltd through its Managing Director, Regional Office at S C O 367-368, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. Dhingra Automobiles, Giani Zail Singh Market, Moga Road, Kotkapura.

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh N S Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 OP-2 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective motorcycle and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 10.05.2017, complainant purchased a motorcycle from OP-2, who is authorized

                                                complaint no.-195 of 2017

dealer of OP-1 and paid the entire amount,  but OP-2 did not issue him any bill. Complainant signed the delivery slip with OP-2 and took motorcycle and while going to his village, which is about 15 km from Kotkapura, complainant noticed popping sound of engine which was quite un-ignorable. Very next day i.e on 11.05.2017, complainant approached workshop of OP-2 and complained about the sound. Mechanic of OP-2 checked the engine and removed some part from it, but despite this, sound problem did not remove, rather it became more harsh and irritable. Complainant requested OP-2 to replace the said motorcycle and prayed for giving him a new one as there was some manufacturing defect in the motorcycle sold by OPs to him. OP-2 told complainant to come after 3-4 days and said that he would talk about this to  Company. On 17.05.2017, complainant again visited Op-2 and requested to provide new motorcycle, but OP-2 refused to give him new motorcycle taking plea that said motorcycle is now registered in the name of complainant. counsel for complainant submitted before the Forum that on the date of purchase i.e 10.05.2017, OP-2 did not issue him any bill, but on 13.05.2017, in the absence of complainant, OP-2 issued Sale Invoice which is not signed by the complainant and signature of complainant are forged by OP-2, which is a cheating. Complainant refused to take delivery of said defective motorcycle and came back his home and till then, said motorcycle is lying with OP-2. Thereafter, complainant approached OPs several times with request to deliver him new motorcycle free from any defect, but all in vain. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to replace the defective

 

complaint no.-195 of 2017

motorcycle and pay compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                   Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                         Notice issued to OP-2 through registered cover not received back. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. OP-2 deemed to be served but none appeared on behalf of OP-2 on date fixed and after repeated calls till 4.00 p.m., when no body appeared for OP-2 either in person or through counsel, then, vide order dated 10.08.2017, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.                        

5                                               Though OP-2 was proceeded against exparte, but at later stage, OP-2 appeared in the Forum and submitted application for setting aside the exparte order. As per law, exparte order cannot be set aside but Op-2 was allowed to join the proceedings and thereafter, OP-1 and 2 filed reply.

6                                                          OP-1 and 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that there is no fault on the part of OPs, rather complainant himself is not coming forward to take up the delivery of his vehicle which is free from all kinds of defects. It is averred that allegations levelled by complainant need voluminous  evidence and cannot be decided in summary proceedings of this Forum. OPs further averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and it is an abuse of process of law. Complainant has concocted a false story and all the allegations levelled by him are false and frivolous and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed. As per OPs, the vehicle purchased by complainant carries warranty for five years or 70,000 km

complaint no.-195 of 2017

whichever is earlier from the date of purchase and obligation of answering OPs is only to repair and replace the defective parts and it does not extend to replacement or refund of price. Story made by complainant is totally false. It is asserted that  complainant approached OP-2 and expressed his desire to purchase the vehicle stating that he would like to ride the vehicle for one day before buying the same. His request was accepted and vehicle was delivered to him on 10.05.2017. Next day, complainant reported the problem of mild sound coming from engine which was resolved being minor issue and vehicle had no problem. Thereafter, complainant took the delivery of vehicle on 13.05.2017 and executed customer satisfaction note being fully satisfied. He executed sale envoice alongwith other relevant documents. After that complainant used the said vehicle for about a month without any complaint and came back to OP-2 on 7.06.2017 with problem of some sound from engine and stated that he does not want said vehicle and demanded replacement. OP-2 tried to convince complainant that refund or replacement is not permissible, but complainant was adamant for new vehicle and refused to take the vehicle in question. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

7                                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

 

complaint no.-195 of 2017

8                                            Despite availing several opportunities, OP-1 did not tender any evidence. There seemed to be no ground adjourn the case and therefore, vide order dated 7.02.2018, evidence of OP-1 was closed by order of the Forum.

9                                                                 We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

10                                                      Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 10.05.2017, complainant purchased a motorcycle from OP-2 and paid the entire amount,  but no bills was issued to him. Complainant took motorcycle and during way to his village, which is about 15 km from Kotkapura, he noticed some un-ignorable popping sound of engine. Next day, he approached workshop of OP-2 and complained about the sound. Their mechanic checked the engine and removed some part from it, but despite this, sound problem did not solve, rather it became more harsh and irritable. Complainant requested OP-2 to replace the said motorcycle as there was some manufacturing defect in vehicle sold by OPs to him. OP-2 told him to come after 3-4 days on the pretext that he would talk to  Company. On 17.05.2017, complainant again visited Op-2 and requested to provide new motorcycle, but OP-2 refused to give him new motorcycle taking plea that said motorcycle is now registered in the name of complainant. Earlier on the date of purchase i.e 10.05.2017, OP-2 did not issue him any bill, but on 13.05.2017, in the absence of complainant, OP-2 issued Sale Invoice which is not signed by the complainant and signature of complainant are forged by OP-2, which is a cheating. Complainant refused to take delivery of defective motorcycle and came back his home and till then, said motorcycle is in possession of OP-2. Thereafter, despite several visits and requests made by complainant, OPs did not

complaint no.-195 of 2017

redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has also stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 5.

11                                                To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no defect in motorcycle purchased by complainant and complainant himself is at fault in not keeping the same with him. Minor issue of sound in engine was already resolved but complainant was adamant to get replaced his motor cycle with new one, which is not possible as per rules because liability and obligation of OPs is only to make repairs or to replace defective parts, if any and not to replace the entire motorcycle. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

12                                              After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle from OPs, which keeps giving harsh, popping and un-ignorable sound. He reported the matter to OPs, who assured to rectify the defect, but said defect persisted in his vehicle. Even at the time of purchase, OP-2 did not issue him bill which they issued at later stage and as per allegations of complainant, bill issued to him does not have his signature, rather signatures made on it are fake and Ops have tried to defraud him. On the other hand plea taken by Ops is that motorcycle purchased by complainant is totally defect free. Only minor issue of some sound in engine was reported by complainant, which was resolved on the spot and now, there is no defect or any problem in said motorcycle and complainant himself is at fault in not taking the delivery of his motorcycle. It is duly admitted by Ops that complainant is their consumer and issue of said defect of

complaint no.-195 of 2017

popping sound in engine reported by complainant to them is also admitted by OPs. It is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant in not doing repairs of his motorcycle. Had they resolved the issue of popping harsh sound in the beginning, complainant would not have filed the present complaint.

13                                            From above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that OPs have failed to provide effective services to the satisfaction of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to replace the motorcycle in question with new one of same model. OPs are ordered to get transfer and make the registration certificate and insurance of old motorcycle to new one at their own costs. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 12.02.2019             

 

(Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                       Member                             President