Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

156/2013

J.Sekar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Motors Corporation Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

27 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on  :  19.08.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  : 27.06.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE  27^th    DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

C.C.NO.156/2013

 

 

J.Sekar,

S/o.Mr.G.Jayaraman,

No.15/4, Sadyappadoss Street,

Perambur,

Chennai – 11.

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Heromoto Corp  Limited, 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasantvihar, New Delhi – 110 057.   2.Nagappa Motors Pvt Ltd.,, 13, Balfour Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  21.08.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for   Opposite parties                 :S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant  purchased a Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.57,400/- on 16.02.2001 from the 2^nd Opposite Party who is authorized dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party. The registration number of the vehicle is TN-05-AS-328. The Complainant took the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party for first service on 01.03.2013 at 750 kms  with complaints about starting trouble and ineffective brake. Even after such service the defects  continued and  charge  a sum of Rs.485/-. The Complainant  took the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.06.2013 for second service at 295 kms  with complaints   of oil leakage, starting trouble and brake ineffective. Even after such service the starting trouble and brake problem continued. Hence on 10.06.2013  he took the vehicle for an unscheduled service with complaints speed meter was not  functioning. The vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect. Hence the Complainant caused a legal notice dated  09.07.2013 to refund the cost of the vehicle and to compensate the loss of Rs.50,000/- incurred  by him. The 2^nd Opposite Party they  were replied dated 16.07.2013 through e-mail requesting the Complainant to bring his vehicle for inspection and service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for the above said relief with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant purchase the vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party and manufactured  by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.03.2013 to avail his first free service at 750 kms vide coupon no 149780. At the time of the first service, the Complainant had raised problems in the vehicle relating to starting trouble and ineffective breaks. These minor problems in the vehicle were duly attended to and the Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle the very same day.  Three (3) months after first service, the Complainant brought his vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.06.2013 to avail his second free service. The kilo meter reading was noted down to be 2954 kms and a job card was prepared. On this occasion the Complainant had complained regarding ineffective breaks,  horn sound and clutch spring oil. Since the complaints were minor and could be rectified within a day’s time, the 2^nd Opposite Party gave delivery of the vehicle resolving all the complaints on the very same day.  On 10.06.2013 the Complaint  brought his vehicle for an unscheduled service and made out the same problems as stated by him on the occasion of the 2^nd service along with few trivial issues like tightening of back carriage.  On all the occasions the Complainant took delivery of the vehicle without raising any issues after such services. This being the case, the Complainant on 09.07.2013 sent the 1^st Opposite Party a legal notice alleging hat the unscheduled service had caused him a loss of Rs.50,000/- in business and further alleged that the vehicle sold to him was sub standard and of poor durability. In reply dated 16.07.2013 to the above notice had requested the Complainant asking him to bring the vehicle for a detailed inspection  to enable him to take necessary actions. The  Complainant without any basis alleges that the Opposite Parties have failed to rectify the issues in the vehicles, inspite of the Opposite Parties having provided all necessary services to the Complainant. In fact the Complainant is guilty of failing to co-operate with the Opposite Parties to resolve the alleged complaints. With the ulterior motive of enriching himself at the cost of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has approached this Forum claiming undue damages from the Opposite Parties.  When the request was made by the Opposite Parties for inspection of the vehicle vide e-mail date 16.07.2013, thereby suppressing the actual circumstances in which the present Complaint is being filed. In the above circumstances the Opposite Parties states they have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO :1

          It is  an admitted the Complainant purchased Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle from the  authorized dealer of the 2^nd Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.57,400/- paid under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  which was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party.

          5.  The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties that the vehicle was having defects starting  trouble, ineffective break oil leakage and even after service the defects were continue and therefore the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defects and therefore he wants refund of the cost  of the vehicle with compensation.

          6. The Complainant handed over the vehicle the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.03.2013 at 750 kms for first service and 01.06.2013 at 2954 kms for  secondfree service  and on 10.06.2013 at 3155 kms in an unscheduled service alleging the above said defects. Ex.A5,Ex.A6,Ex.A7 and  Ex.B5, Ex.B6, Ex.B9 proof  are service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party. If a vehicle having inherent manufacturing defects means, the defect should be in the  engine or  any other part of the vehicle which could not be rectified. Absolutely there is not proof the evidence on behalf of the Complainant that the vehicle is having any such manufacture   defect.

          7. The defect alleged has been rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party then and there as per the documents available. The Complainant issued Ex.A8 notice stating that the vehicle is having defects the 2^nd Opposite Party issued Ex.A10 reply to bring the vehicle for inspection and during the  needful at his end.  However, the Complainant has not handed over the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party to rectify the defects if any in the vehicle as requested in Ex.A10 reply. It is the Complainant   who has not hand over  the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party to rectify the defects if any and therefore owing to the opportunity not given to the 2^nd Opposite Party to rectify the defects that the vehicle is having defects has not been proof by the Complainant. Therefore, absolutely no evidence on behalf of the Complainant that the  Opposite Party have committed Deficiency in Service and accordingly this point is answered.

8. POINT NO :2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

 

 

 

         

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd   day of June  2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.02.2013                   Advance payment invoice issued by 2^nd Opposite

                                                 Party

 

Ex.A2 dated 12.02.2013                   Down payment Invoice issued by 2^nd Opposite

                                                 Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 15.02.2013                   Total payment invoice issued by 2^nd Opposite

                                                  Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 16.02.2013                   Complete invoice issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 01.03.2013                     Service bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 01.03.2013                   1^st Service coupon counter Foli issued by 2^nd

                                                 Opposite Party

 

Ex.A7 dated 01.06.2013                   2^nd service coupon counter Foli issued by 2^nd

                                                 Opposite Party

 

Ex.A8 dated 09.07.2013                   Legal notice issued by Complainant

Ex.A9 dated 09.07.2013                   Postal receipt

Ex.A10 dated 16.07.2013         Reply notice of the 2^nd Opposite Party

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex.B1 dated 06.02.2013                   Copy of payment receipt

Ex.B2 dated 12.02.2013                   Copy of payment receipt

Ex.B3 dated 14.02.2013                   Copy of order cum Dilivery Note    

Ex.B4 dated 16.02.2013                   Copy of payment receipt details

Ex.B5 dated 01.06.2013                   Copy of free service Job Card

Ex.B6 dated 10.06.2013                   Copy of quick service Job Card

Ex.B7 dated 09.07.2013                   Copy of letter sent by the Complainant to 1^st

                                                Opposite Party

 

Ex.B8 dated 16.07.2013                   Copy of e-mail sent by the 1^st Opposite Party to the

                                                  Complainant

 

Ex.B9 dated NIL                     Copy of the History of Jobs

Ex.B10 dated NIL                             Copy of Ledger Account for the period of

                                                  01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013                                   

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT