Haryana

Ambala

CC/312/2011

GUNINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN YAMAHA MOTORS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL MALHOTRA

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                Complaint Case No. : 312 of 2011

                                                                                                 Date of Institution    : 22.09.2011

                                    Date of Decision      :  08.02.2017

Gurinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh R/o 86, Durand Road, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

Versus

1.         Indian Yamaha Motors Pvt. Limited, A-3, Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida-Dadri Road, Surajpur-201306 (Greater Noida), U.P. through its Managing Director.

2.         M/s Kanwal Automobiles,116-B, Alexandra Road, Opp. Capital Cinema, Ambala Cantt through its Authorized Signatory.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Anil Malhotra, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Vig, Adv. counsel for Op no.1.              

                        Op No.2 exparte vide order dated 10.01.2012.

 

ORDER.

                             

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased Yamaha Motorcycle Model R-15 having Chasis No.ME138B015A-2008777 and Engine No.38B-1008635 from Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.99500/- vide invoice No.603 dated 08.06.2010.  It has been alleged that the motor-cycle started  giving problem since the very beginning and  the complainant  approached the OP no.2 who after checking the motorcycle vide job card no.1295 dated 05.01.2011 told that the engine of the motorcycle has been ceased and the Op No.2 asked the complainant to pay the full charges of repair of the motorcycle. So, the complainant requested the Op no.2 that the vehicle is still under warranty.  Therefore, a legal notice got served upon the OP requiring the Ops to replace or repair the motorcycle or to refund the costs of the motorcycle of Rs.99500/- alongwith interest.  The notice was duly received by the OP   but failed to comply with the notice.  Hence the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed reply  raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and complaint being false and frivolous. Further it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the motor cycle in question from Op No.2 on 08.06.2010 vide invoice no.603  in a sum of Rs.99500/-. However, it has also been added that the answering Op being manufacturing company sells the motor cycles only to their dealer on principal-to-principal basis. Further it has been submitted that   company provides a warranty of two years of 30,000 Km. of operation whichever is earlier from the date of purchase to the original purchaser only provided that  if the motor cycle is serviced as per  the schedule of answering OP and there should no brake in the service of the motorcycle.  Further it has been submitted that the first free service of the motor cycle was done vide job card no.345 dated 08.06.2010 at the meter reading 885 Km. and the second free service of the vehicle was conducted  on 16.09.2010 at 2990 Km. and during both the services  motor cycle was brought for routine free service and normal check-up and there is not even a single complaint  regarding any defect nor any problem was mentioned in the motorcycle by complainant and so on  services of the motor cycle was done at 5091 and 8823 kms. whereas, the 3^rd, 5^th and 6^th service was lapsed by complainant.  It has been submitted that when the vehicle was brought to them at 8883 Kms. it was examined  and ‘engine of the motor cycle found ceased’. As such, there is no fault on the part of answering Op and the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for Op no.1 tendered affidavit Annexure RA alongwith documents as Annexure RW1/D & R-2 to R-4 and closed their evidence. 

 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that engine of the motorcycle so purchased by him from OP no.2 ceased despite regular services get done by him from their service centre. But despite issuing legal notice to the Ops, they did not replace, repair or refund the cost of the motor cycle to the tune of Rs.99500/-.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Op no.2 has argued that the complainant has not got done the regular services of the motorcycle on necessary interval, therefore,  due to late servicing, the engine of the motorcycle ceased and there is no fault on their part.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been admitted by Op that the motor cycle to the complainant has been sold by their dealer i.e. Op No.2  and the motor cycle was sold by OP No.1 manufacturing company to their dealer was on principal to principal basis under an agreement between them, so the OP No.2 manufacturing company is not liable in any manner for any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. It is also admitted fact on record that when the vehicle became defective it was under warranty. Perusal of Warranty Manual (Annexure R-2) placed on record says that:-

“YAMAHA will replace or repair at its Authorized Dealership free of charge, those parts which may be found on examination to have manufacturing defect, within 2 years from the date of sale  of motorcycle or first 30,000 Kms of its operation whichever occurs first, to the purchaser.  AND VALIDITY OF THIS WARRANTY: coverage  on the motorcycle shall be valid only if the  customer avails all free  and paid services from Yamaha’s Authorized Dealer as per recommended service schedule and genuine  spare parts must be used. The customer shall ensure that each service is availed within 70 days from the date of previous service or as per recommended service schedule whichever is earlier.

                        From the record placed on filed, it is clear that the complainant has not got done the service of motor cycle as per warranty clause/norms of the company but the later servicing of the vehicle could not be sole reason  for ceasing of the engine and therefore, we assume that there may be some other reason for the same. Since the vehicle became defective during the warranty period, so, in the interest of justice and to curb down litigation, we partly allow the present complaint with no order as to costs and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To overhaul the engine of the motorcycle in question to the satisfaction of complainant. However, it is made clear that no amount will be taken from the complainant.

 

                                                                                                           SD/-

ANNOUNCED: 08.02.2017.                                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER