BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.99 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.03.2015

Date of Decision :16.07.2015

Rajat Sharma aged about 33 years son of Rampal Sharma R/o H.No.272, Karol Bagh, Near DIPS School, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Honda Motors Cycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd (HMSI) Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana)-122050.

2. M/s Raga Motors Pvt Ltd, outside Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, Amritsar Byepass, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person with counsel.

Sh.VK Singla Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased a new Honda Activa Scooter, Engine No.JF50E70559808 Ch.No.ME4JF501AE7560529 against bill No.131N02856 from M/s Raga Motors Pvt Ltd, outside Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, Amritsar Byepass, Jalandhar on 25.1.2014. The scooter was in proper working condition at the time of purchase, but it started giving troubles like- starting problem, oil leakage, kick paddle jam, petrol leakage & vibrations in handle bar etc, after 2nd service was done. He approached the service centre and told them about these problems. They checked the scooter and handed over the scooter to him, claiming that they have rectified all problems. But the problems seemed to have been solved for few days and started showing again one by one within one month. He revisited the service centre, again complain about the problems. Again they corrected the faults but after few days the problems started showing again. The service centre did not take care of his scooter properly. They did not carry out 3rd free due service and executed 4th service, skipping 3rd service. He once again asked them to make a job card of problems of his scooter. They once again repaired the scooter but to no use. He has paid a sum of Rs.48658/- to M/s Raga Motors to buy his Activa Scooter. But he got only bunch of problems in lieu of Rs.48658/-. He has been left only to visit and revisit the service centre, without any result and a lot of wastage of his working hours, causing him financial loss and a lot of inconvenience to go to his work place without scooter. He has to pay for Rickshaw fare to keep himself in touch with his clients . The most importantly, the warranty period for this scooter is still and very much valid. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon, notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that it is totally wrong and baseless that the scooter started giving troubles like starting problem, oil leakage, kick paddle jam, petrol leakage and vibration in handle bar etc after the 2nd service was done. It is made clear that there was no such problem in the scooter and even the complainant never complained any such problems as alleged in the complaint. The problems mentioned by the complainant are imaginary only. Moreover, the allegations of the complainant are totally vague and without any facts and figures. The complainant has not even mentioned as to when he alleged to have approached the opposite parties for the alleged purpose. However, after first and second free services, the complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 on 2.8.2014 at 1794 kms for accidental repair and the front fender was changed under insurance cover, but no such problems as alleged by the complainant were found and the complainant had taken the scooter after his satisfaction. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that the problems seemed to be solved for few days and started showing again one by one within one month, is totally wrong, false and baseless. It is totally wrong and baseless that the service centre did not take car of scooter of the complainant properly and it is also wrong that the opposite party did not carry out 3rd free due service and executed 4th service skipping 3rd service. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not approach the service centre in time for 3rd free service as per the owner's manual, as such the 3rd free service could not be done and the complainant can not blame the opposite parties for the same. It is further made clear that the complainant approached the service centre on 15.11.2014 whereas, he could get the 3rd free service done within eight months from the date of purchase. The averment of the complainant that he once again asked the opposite parties to make a job card of problems of his scooter and that they again repaired the scooter but of no use is also totally wrong, false and baseless and is denied. It is made clear that the complainant can not accrue his claim just by getting made the job card. It is made clear that the complainant had lastly visited the opposite party No.2 on 28.2.2015 with 3658Kms run scooter for some general repairs and the opposite party No.2 delivered the vehicle to the complainant after doing the needful and the complainant perhaps in a preplanned manner took the vehicle on 2.3.2015 by giving note that he would check the scooter first and went by saying that he would be checking the scooter on road, but thereafter he has never turned up till today and instead filed the present complaint. However, as a matter of good gesture for its customers, the opposite party No.2 made phone calls to the complainant even after the present complaint that he can come to the opposite party if he has nay problem, but the complainant never came after 2.3.2015. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the Activa in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 25.1.2014 Ex.C3 for Rs.48658/-. Ex.O1 is warranty policy and as per warranty policy, the warranty is upto two years or 24000 kms which ever occurs first. So the Activa of the complainant is still within warranty. The version of the complainant that his Activa started giving troubles like- starting problem, oil leakage, kick paddle jam, petrol leakage & vibrations in handle bar etc, after 2nd service was done, can not be accepted. He has not shown if he ever made any complaint to the opposite parties in this regard. The complainant has produced invoices Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 regarding service of his Activa and in the invoices there is no mention of above said complaints. So far as 3rd service is concerned, the complainant never approached the opposite parties for 3rd service within time. So opposite parties can not be blamed. Counsel for the opposite parties stated at bar that the Activa is still within warranty and they are ready to rectify the problem in it, if any, as per terms and conditions of the warranty.

7. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects in the Activa of the complainant, if any, as per terms and conditions of the warranty. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.07.2015 Member Member President