DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.316 of 07-07-2011 Decided on 30-09-2011
Sushil Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Sh. Rati Ram, Resident of Beer Talab, Basti No.6, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd., Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana)-122050, through its M.D./Chairman. Empire Automobiles, 3029, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner. Brar's Scooter, Bathinda-Goniana G.T.Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner. Exide Industries Ltd., SCF No.2, Opp. T.V. Tower, Model Town, Bathinda, through its Authorized Person/Partner/Proprietor.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. B.S.Dhalla, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. B.S.Mann, counsel for opposite party Nos.1,3&4 Opposite party No.2 exparte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Honda Motor Cycle, Make CB Twister (CBF 110MA), manufactured by the opposite party No.1 bearing Engine No.JC47E0058089, Chassis No.ME4JC472FA8039369 from the opposite party No.2 vide Invoice No.10IN01653 dated 26.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.46,713/- with one year guarantee in case of any defect in the said motorcycle. The complainant has alleged that after few days of purchasing the above said motorcycle, a defect appeared in the battery of the said motorcycle manufactured by the opposite party No.4 and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and it informed the complainant and assured that the said defect is a minor defect problem, that shall be rectified at the time of services to be provided by the opposite party No.2 and asked the complainant to use the above said motorcycle. The complainant got two services of his motorcycle from the opposite party No.2 and also requested to rectify the said problem but the defect in the battery could not be removed by the opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to get the said battery replaced with new one but the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that some dispute are going on between the opposite party Nos.1&2 regarding the agency of the opposite party No.2 and requested the complainant to wait for some time and assured to get the needful done as soon as the dispute is settled. In the mean time, the opposite party No.3, became authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1. The complainant got the third service of the above said motorcycle done from the opposite party No.3 and also requested about the defect in the aforesaid battery of the motorcycle as the motorcycle of the complainant did not use to start due to the defect in the battery, as such the opposite party No.3 sent the said defective battery to the opposite party No.4 vide Delivery Challan No.BHT/BHT/11/2627 dated 30.05.2011 but the opposite party No.4 refused to provide any service to the said motorcycle nor replaced the same with new one rather rejected the warranty on the ground that “Reject due to Warranty Six months over Mfg. Code.” The complainant purchased the above said motorcycle on 26.02.2011 and the warranty has yet not been elapsed rather it is still within warranty period since the date of purchase of the said motorcycle. The complainant is entitled to the guarantee/warranty over the said motorcycle w.e.f. The date of purchase and the opposite party Nos.1&2 used the said manufacturing battery in the said motorcycle. The complainant has also requested the opposite parties to replace the battery with new one or to refund the total amount of the motorcycle but the opposite party Nos.1&2 refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the defective battery of the motorcycle with new one or to refund the amount of the motorcycle alongwith cost and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1,3&4 after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the opposite party No.4 sells the batteries to the opposite party No.1 subject to the condition that the liability of the opposite party No.4 would be only if the battery is sold within three months from the date of manufacturing of the battery which is written in “code” on the battery itself and in that case, the warranty of the opposite party No.4 shall be for 1½ year from the date of sale, otherwise there would be no warranty of the opposite party No.4 to repair or replace the battery. As per the above said condition, the opposite party No.1 has circulated these conditions to all its dealers including opposite party No.2 whose dealership has since been cancelled and in case of violation, the said dealer shall be personally liable. In the present case, the battery used in the motorcycle was manufactured in June, 2010 and the motorcycle was sold in February, 2011 i.e. after 8 months. As per the terms agreed to between the opposite party Nos.1&2, the liability of damage of the battery is on the opposite party No.2 and there remains no liability of the opposite party No.4 to repair/replace the said battery. The opposite party Nos.1,3&4 have further pleaded that the opposite party No.3 was a newly appointed dealer of the opposite party No.1 and was not aware of the manufacturing code and its officials got removed the installed battery and sent the same to the opposite party No.4 for replacement but since the battery was sold after three months from the date of manufacturing date, the claim was rejected due to warranty six months over Manufacturing Code. 3. The opposite party No.2 despite service of notice/summon, has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The complainant had purchased Honda Motor Cycle, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 bearing Engine No.JC47E005 8089, Chassis No.ME4JC472FA8039369 from the opposite party No.2 vide Invoice No.10IN01653 dated 26.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.46,713/- and one year guarantee was given to the complainant in case of any defect in the above said motorcycle. The defect appeared in the battery of the said motorcycle after few days of its purchase. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and it informed the complainant that the said defect is a minor defect and that shall be rectified during the course of services to be provided by the opposite party No.2 to the above mentioned motorcycle. The complainant got first two services of his motorcycle from the opposite party No.2. The complainant again complained about the defect in the battery at the time of service and requested the opposite party No.2 to rectify the said problem but the opposite party No.2 requested the complainant that there is some dispute between the opposite party Nos.1&2 regarding the agency and when the dispute will be over, needful be done. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3, authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 for third free service of the motorcycle and complained about the defect in the battery. The opposite party No.3 sent the said defective battery to the opposite party No.4 vide Delivery Challan No. BHT/BHT/11/2627 dated 30.05.2011 but the opposite party No.4 refused to repair the said battery of the said motorcycle nor replaced the same with new one rather rejected the warranty on the ground “Reject due to Warranty Six months over Mfg. Code.” 7. The complainant has purchased the above said motorcycle on 26.02.2011 and the warranty has yet not been elapsed. The opposite party No.4 has refused to replace or rectify the defect in the battery of the motorcycle on the ground that it is out of warranty. 8. The opposite party Nos.1,3&4 in para no.1 on merit of their written statement have themselves submitted that the opposite party No.4 sells the Batteries to the opposite party No.1 subject to the condition that the liability of the opposite party No.4 would be only if the battery is sold within three months from the date of manufacturing of the battery which is written in “code” on the battery itself and in that case, the warranty of the opposite party No.4 shall be for 1½ year from the date of sale, otherwise there would be no warranty of the opposite party No.4 to repair or replace the battery. The opposite party No.1 has circulated these conditions to all its dealers including opposite party No.2 whose dealership has since been cancelled. In case of any violation, the dealer shall be personally liable. The battery used in the above mentioned motorcycle was manufactured in June, 2010 and the motorcycle was sold in February, 2011 i.e. after 8 months. Thus, as per the terms agreed between the opposite party Nos.1&2, the liability of damage of the battery is on the opposite party No.2 and there remains no liability of the opposite party No.4 to repair/replace the said battery. The battery installed in the motorcycle was sold after 3 months from the date of manufacturing to the opposite party No.2. 9. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant had purchased the above mentioned motorcycle on 26.02.2011 and Form No.22 has been issued to him. On the complaint of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 has sent the battery to the opposite party No.5 vide Delivery Challan No. BHT/BHT/11/2627 dated 30.05.2011 and the warranty so given has been rejected due to Warranty Six months over Mfg. Code. 10. The date of purchase of the motorcycle is 26.02.2011 and the complainant has complained about the defect in the battery to the opposite party No.2 whose dealership has been cancelled. Thereafter, he has reported the matter to the opposite party No.3 who showed his bonafide intention and sent the battery to the opposite party No.4 but the opposite party No.4 outrightly rejected the warranty of the battery. When the motorcycle was sold on 26.02.2011, the warranty of one year has been given, it has not been given on the different parts of the motorcycle rather the warranty was given on the motorcycle as a whole as one unit. 11. Moreover, the complainant has purchased the motorcycle from the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.3 has stepped in the shoes of the opposite party No.2 as the agency of the opposite party No.2 has been cancelled and issued to the opposite party No.3 by the opposite party No.1. Therefore, the complainant knows only the dealer. Any dispute regarding the warranty of the battery is inter-se between the manufacturer company and dealer i.e. opposite party Nos.1,3&4. The complainant has purchased the motorcycle as one unit, the different warranty has not been given by the opposite parties on different components. The warranty by the company has been given on all parts as a whole to the said motorcycle. In the present case, the warranty of the motorcycle starts from the very date of its purchase, not from any previous date. 12. Thereafter, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1,3&4 jointly or severally and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.1,3&4 are directed to replace the battery of the motorcycle in question with new one with fresh warranty. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 30-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
