| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 670 of 21-10-2014 Decided on : 24-09-2015 Bharat Bhushan aged about 26 years S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o #6954, Mohalla Guru Nanak Pura, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Hero Motors Corporation Limited, 37 Km Stone, Delhi/Jaipur Highway, Sector 33, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director. Kamal Enterprises, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Owner/Prop./Manager Raunak Motors, Opposite ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Owner/Prop/Manager
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Amandeep Singh, counsel for complainant. For the opposite parties : Opposite parties exparte. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Bharat Bhushan, complainant has filed this complaint against Hero Motors and others, opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of Hero vehicles. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are its authorized dealers and authorized service centre. The complainant purchased one Hero motorcycle make Ignitor bearing registration No. PB-03AD-6059 from opposite party No. 2 being its authorized dealer for Rs. 49,956/- on 20-03-2013. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant regarding correctness, genuineness and functioning of the motorcycle in all aspects. The opposite party No. 2 also gave warranty with regard to engine of the same for five years. The complainant got his motorcycle insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., and now it is insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., It is pleaded that after purchase of motorcycle, the complainant started using it. He was greatly astonished and surprised on finding that motorcycle did not function properly. Its engine started creating problem at the beginning and some other problem. There was no proper pick up. Engine was making unwanted sounds and creating problems. The complainant went to opposite party No. 2 and complained with regard to these problems. They replied that after service it will be okay. The complainant got two services of the motorcycle from opposite party No. 2, but he was unsatisfied as the problems were not removed. Then complainant went to opposite party No. 3. They told him that after service, motorcycle will run smoothly and will not create any trouble. It is pleaded that after completion of package of services i.e. three services, motorcycle did not function properly. It created more and more problems. The complainant requested opposite party No. 3 again in this respect and took the vehicle to them. They changed clutch plates, chain set and some other parts and charged Rs. 9964/- vide invoice dated 14-8-2014. They assured the complainant that now the same will not create any problem. Thereafter the complainant started using motorcycle, but after some days, it started creating same problem. The defects/problems were not removed. It did not run smoothly. There was no proper pick up and there was also unwanted sound. Again on 21-08-14, the complainant went to opposite party No. 3. They again charged Rs. 214/-. It is further alleged that ultimately on 19-9-2014, the motorcycle jammed/stuck. The complainant went to opposite party No. 2 but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter complainant went to opposite party No. 3 and they replied that above said parts are to be changed again. The opposite party No. 3 retained the vehicle with them vide Job Sheet No. 11440.03-RJC-914-2589. On 20-09-2014 complainant went to opposite party No. 3 . They did not give any satisfactory reply rather demanded Rs. 1500/- from him. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to replace the motorcycle as there is manufacturing defect in the same and it did not function properly but the opposite parties have not cared to do the needful. Ultimately, the opposite parties flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed Rs. 5500/- as cost; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical agony and direction to the opposite parties to replace the motorcycle. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. Previously, opposite party No. 3 appeared through its Manager and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, opposite party No. 3 has submitted that complainant has already filed complaint for the same allegations vide CC No. 671 dated 21-10-2014. In this case, name of Insurance Company has been removed and the case has been filed against these opposite parties. That complainant has actually damaged his vehicle in an accident and wanted to get the same cost reimbursed from the Insurance Company. This fact he has omitted to mention. It is pleaded that complainant has reached the dealership for the insurance of vehicle bearing engine number and chassis number as given in the complaint. He wanted insurance of the vehicle to be renewed and stated that he did not claim any money from the insurance agency for the preceding year since no damage to vehicle ever took place. He was therefore entitled to claim No Claim Bonus. The insurance was accordingly made. It is pleaded that visit of the complainant to dealership was not for want of satisfaction needed for the service done, but for an accident that had taken place with the motorcycle. It was on his request that surveyors were called and survey of the vehicle was done on the same day. It was brought out by the surveyor that all the components, the complainant desired to be changed cannot be complied with. He gave an estimate of Rs. 7600/- for the vehicle. It was on the request of the complainant that additional components that he desired to be changed were changed. It was also learnt that claim had a dispute since he was not entitled to No Claim Bonus. Some claim had already been made in the previous year. Subsequently there was also some dispute regarding damaged items and No Claim bonus between the surveyor and the complainant. It is also pleaded that noticing delay in finalization of claim, the dealership asked the complainant to clear the bill of claim and asked the Insurance Company to hand over the insurance claim cheque to complainant once the formalities between two parties are completed. After completing all the needed repairs of the vehicle, the complainant came again with the complaint of vehicle not functioning properly. It was brought out by mechanic that some parts needed to be checked and changed. Since it was a repeat complaint, all those parts that could effect the normal functioning of the vehicle were changed. Parts that were coming in the period of warranty were replaced without any charges and the parts that were placed new, were charged from the complainant. Hence Rs. 214/- were charged later on. The complainant again visited dealership. It was informed by him that the vehicle is still not functioning properly. Dealership never asked for the amount of Rs. 1500/- that has been mentioned by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 206/- only had been charged from the complainant. After controverting all the averments, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 9-4-2015 (Ex. C-11), and photocopies of documents i.e certificate of registration (Ex. C-1), registration details (Ex. C-2), temporary certificate of registration (Ex. C-3), coupons (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6), optional extended warranty registration form (Ex. C-7) and invoices (Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-10). Subsequently none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and it was proceeded against exparte. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as set up in the complaint and detailed above. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. From the perusal of complaint, it is noticed that complainant has not brought true facts before this Forum. The complainant has simply alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. The motorcycle was purchased by the complainant in the year 2013. The complainant himself has pleaded that he got it insured immediately after its purchase and subsequently after expiry of previous insurance policy. The complainant has only placed on record copies of free services coupons. There is nothing in these coupons to prove any manufacturing defect. The complainant has also produced on record extended warranty registration form, but it also does not prove any manufacturing defect, Invoices Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-10 are produced to prove that complainant spent amount for getting his motorcycle repaired. Invoice Ex. C-9 proves that complainant got changed some parts presumably on account of accident. Therefore in these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there was any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. More so, when the complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect. In the result, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 24-09-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
