SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-replacement of complainant’s defective Motorbike are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant purchased a Hero Glamour motor Bike on dt. 20/09/2014 from Op No.3, J.M.G. Automobiles,Mahatab Road, Cuttack and register it bearing No.-ODO5K1699. After purchase of the vehicle it made some unusual sound and complainant unable to drive the same met Op No.3 dealer ventilated the grievance of persisting defect and Op No.3 refused to eradicate the defect as the defects detected in the vehicle are manufacturing defect in nature and assured the Complainant to replace the same. But lastly refused to replace the vehicle, Complainant also reported the matter to Op No.1&2, who advised the complainant to met Op No.4, the local dealer of Kendrapara town. But Op No.4 did not listen to the direction of OpNo.2 as the vehicle was not purchased from their shop. Such action of Ops are deficiency in service and caused financial loss, mental agony to the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 20.7.2015 when as the last occasion the Ops refused to replace the vehicle.
3. On receipt of the Notice, Op no.1 to 3 appeared through their Ld. Counsels and filed Joint written statement formally denying the allegations and on their parawise reply it is stated that after purchase of the said motor bike in question was brought to the workshop of Ops for four(4) times during free service period and Complainant has never Complainant if any defect pertaining to abnormal sound in the Engine, rather Complaint being satisfied received the vehicle from the service centre. The service details are filed as Annexure-A into the dispute. It is also averred that answering Ops have never assured the complainant to eradicate or to replace the motorbike at any point of time. It is further averred that the answering Ops are no way related to any dealings between the Complainant and Op no.4 and as the answering Ops have not committed any deficiency in services as alleged by the Complainant relating to the dispute vehicle, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Notice was issued to M/S Baishanabi Motors, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara (OP No.4) by Regd. Post with A.D. On receipts of the Notice OP No.4 appearing for once did not file any written statement, hence set ex-parte by this Forum bearing order No. 21 dtd.23/11/2016.
4. Heard the case of parties on merit as this was a case of the year 2015 and on the last date of hearing it was posted for peremptory hearing. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant purchased a Hero Glamour Motor Cycle from J.M.G. Automobiles, Cuttack (OP No.3) on dt. 20/09/2014 and the said Motor bike was manufactured by OPNo.1-company. It is alleged that after purchase of the vehicle a dangerous sound was detected while driving the vehicle. The matter was reported to Op No.3 dealer who assured the complainant to eradicate the defect, but the defects persist with the vehicle as it was a manufacturing defect. Further, the Complainant intimated the fact to Op No.1&2, who directed the Complaint to meet OP No.4 local dealer, but said Op No.4 turned down the proposal as the vehicle was not sold by them. On the other hand, contesting Ops in their written statement categorically states that after purchase of the vehicle Complainant has availed 4 free servicing without any complaint of unusual sound in the Engine, rather Complainant being satisfied in the performance of the Motor bike put his signature in the Job cards(Annexure-A).
In this context the allegation of Complainant regarding defects of the said vehicle are not supported by any documentary evidence or expert opinion. As per the Complaint all the intimations/assurance of eradication and replacement of vehicle to Ops by the Complainant are not supported by single scrap of paper. On the other hand Annexure-A the job cards filed by answering Ops reveals that Complainant after purchase of the vehicle has availed 4 free servicing but on the list of the Annexure only 3 servicing dates are mentioned i.e, on dt. 12/06/2015, 26/12/2014 & on 18/10/2014, the Annexures are supported by photocopies of job-cards of the relevant dates. We closely analyze the job-cards, which reflects that Complainant on said dates of free servicing received the vehicle with satisfaction and put his signature on the job-card. Not a word or sentence is mentioned in the job-card regarding alleged defects or any defect in the motor bike as narrated by the Complainant. It is the cardinal principle in allegation of manufacturing defect that the Complainant has to show documentary evidence, expert opinion or labrotary report to ascertain the facts of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which needs eradication of defect or replacement of the vehicle. In this aspect Complainant has failed miserably to convince us that the vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defects.
Having observations reflected above, we do not find any deficiency in service on part of Ops as alleged by the Complainant and we, freed Ops including Op No.4 from any such allegations and accordingly the Complaint is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 31th day of March, 2017.
