DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.228 of 14
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 8.8.2014
DATE OF ORDER: -01-07-2015
Dev Raj son of Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of Ward No.3, Near Om Shanti Asharam, Hari Nagar, Charkhi Dadri, tehsi Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter (India) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1 & 2, Sector-3, IMT Manesar (Gurgaon), through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer.
- M.R.M. Autos Pvt. Ltd. Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, through its Prop/Partner.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present:- Shri Dev Raj complainant in person.
Shri Satpal Sihag, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 28.3.2012 he purchased a new Hero Honda Motor Cycle from respondent No.2 with a warranty of two years. It is alleged that the performance of the Motor Cycle in question was otherwise from the date of its purchase. It is also alleged that the motor cycle consumed maximum mobile oil. The complainant further alleged that the Motor Cycle was taken in to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 22.1.2013 and was kept there for three days as some engine repair work was carried but the problem could not rectified. The complainant further alleged that he visited the workshop of respondents several times and requested to remove the defects but they flatly refused and showed their helplessness in the matter in spite of the fact that the vehicle was under warranty period. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have sold the defective motor cycle which was having manufacturing defect. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties have filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant approached the workshop of opposite party No.2 first time for his 1st service on 7.4.2012 where there was no complaint regarding excessive consumption of mobile oil. It is submitted that during his all free services he never complaint about excessive consumption of mobile oil. Even otherwise also during the annual maintenance contract scheme he never made any complaint in this regard. It is further submitted that on 25.2.2013 after the expiry of eleven months he made a complaint about the excessive consumption of oil at a particular time when the motor cycle in question already covered 29819 kilometers and the opposite party No.2 done engine work under the warranty and no payment was charged from the complainant. It is also submitted that on 3.12.2013 again engine repair work was done under the warranty and at that time the motor cycle has covered 48999 kilometers. Even after that the complainant visited the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 4.1.2014 and 12.3.2014 for routine mobile services but he never made any complaint about any defect in the engine. So, there is neither manufacturing defect nor any loss to the complainant on account of less mileage. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure A & B Photostat copies of Bill/Cash Memo dated 28.3.2012, Annexure C Photostat copy of sale certificate, Annexure D Photostat copy of From 22, Annexure E Photostat copy of temporary registration certificate, Annexure F Photostat copy of insurance cover note, Annexure G Photostat copy of RC, Annexure I Photostat copy of AMC, Annexure H Photostat copy of E-Mail along with affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 to R15 Photostat copies of Job Cards along with supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Complainant in person has argued that the Motor Cycle in question is consuming Mobile Oil excessively since the date of purchase on 28.3.2012. He further reiterated the contents of the complaint
7. On the other hand, counsel for Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. It is submitted that for the first time the complainant made complaint about excessive consumption of Mobile Oil on 25.2.2013 and till then the Motor Cycle had already covered 29819 Kms. and he referred the Job Cards Annexure R8. He submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the engine because the Motor Cycle in question had covered more than 29000 Kms. within 11 months from the date of purchase and further Motor Cycle had covered 54160 Kilometers up to 12.3.2014. In support of his contention he referred Job Cards Annexure R1 to R15.
8. The complainant in person, in course of arguments admitted that in the first time he made complaint about the excessive consumption of mobile oil when the Motor Cycle had covered about 29000 kilometers as on 25.2.2013. The Motor Cycle in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.3.2012. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the engine, as contended by the complainant, the Motor Cycle in question could have not run 29819 Kms. as on 25.2.2013 as mentioned in Job Card Annexure R8. The motor cycle has run 54160 Kms. up to 12.3.2014 as per Job Card Annexure 15. The complainant has not sought any technical opinion/report from expert about the manufacturing defect in the engine of the Motor Cycle as alleged by him. Admittedly, the complainant has availed free services from Ops vide Job Cards Annexure R1 to R15 during warranty period.
9. In view of the facts, as narrated above, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the engine of the Motor Cycle is having manufacturing defect. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:1.7.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
