Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1120/2015

Bachettar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jain TVS Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In person

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1120

                                                Instituted on:    21.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       22.07.2016

 

Bachittar Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of Village Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Jain TVS Motors, Thandi Sadak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2.     TVS Motor Company Limited, K-23, 1^st Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part II, New Delhi 110 024.

3.     TVS Motor Company Limited, Jayalakshmi Estate, No.8, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vikramjit Manchanda, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bachittar Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a TVS PHOENIX Motorcycle from OP number 1 for Rs.61,000/- on 30.1.2014, which was having a two years warranty.  Further case of the complainant is that after three months of its purchase, the motorcycle created problem of overheating of engine. As such, the complainant approached the OPs and got checked the motorcycle and after checking the OP number 1 told that it will work automatically and when it did not work properly, the complainant again approached the OP number 1 to get the motorcycle repaired, but all in vain despite spending an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the repair of the motorcycle in question. Lastly, the OP number 1 advised the complainant to get the motorcycle checked at Sangrur or Gobindgarh, as the OP number 1 is not having any proper mechanic to repair the motorcycle in question.  On their advice, the complainant also visited Gobindgarh and Sangrur to get the motorcycle repaired, but the position is the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the motorcycle in question with a new one and further to refund to the complainant the expenses incurred on the motorcycle and further claimed compensation and litigation.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OPs. On merits,  it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question from the OP number 1. However, it is denied that there was any defect in the motorcycle.  It is admitted that the complainant visited the OP for the problem of engine overheating, but when the same was checked, it was found that there was no overheating in the engine.  It is further stated that the complainant after his full satisfaction signed the job card dated 13.7.2015 and again as per the service schedule, the motorcycle was serviced vide job card dated 8.8.2015 and there was no oil leakage and engine heating.  Further it is stated that though the complainant was informed that the clutch plates of the motorcycle are required to be replaced, but the complainant refused to pay for the same.  It is also stated that the complainant was intimated that the clutch plates are not under warranty.  Further it is stated that on 21.9.2015, though the service of the motorcycle was done, but there was no overheating problem there.  On 2.1.2015, the motorcycle was again serviced, but no such problem was there.  Lastly, it is stated that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint which should be dismissed with special costs. 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job card detail, Ex.C-4 copy of temporary RC, Ex.C-5 copy of service invoice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs as produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 affidavit of Amaninder Singh, Ex.OP-3 copy of job card dated 13.7.2015, Ex.OP-4 copy of job card dated 8.8.2015, Ex.OP-5 copy of job card dated 10.8.2015, Ex.OP-6 copy of job card dated 21.9.2015 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle TVS Phoenix motorcycle from OP number 1 on 30.1.2014 for Rs.61,300/- as is evident from the copy of bill on record as Ex.C-2. Further it is an admitted fact of the complainant that since the engine of the vehicle was having the problem of overheating, as such the complainant got the vehicle inspected from OP number 1, who found that the engine of the vehicle is quite OK.  The complainant has produced on record the history of the vehicle as Ex.C-3, wherein it has been repeatedly written that the major repairs of the motorcycle were conducted.  Further we have perused the copy of job order sheet dated 13.7.2015, wherein the complainant complained about the leakage of mobil oil, noise from engine etc as is evident from the copy of job sheet Ex.OP/3.  Further on record is copy of job card dated 8.8.2015 Ex.OP-4, wherein it is complained by the complainant that there is overheating problem of the engine. Again Ex.OP/5 is the copy of job order sheet dated 10.8.2015 whereby the problem of clutch plate is shown and Ex.OP/6 is the copy of job order sheet dated 21.9.2015, wherein at serial number 4 the problem of overheating of the engine is mentioned therein.   On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that there is no engine problem nor there is any overheating problem in the engine.   But, there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why  again and again the motorcycle is suffering from such problems and why the same have been mentioned on the job sheets produced on record.

 

6.             Since it is an admitted case that the complainant approached the Ops for getting the motorcycle repaired especially for getting the engine overheating problem rectified, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs be directed to replace the whole of the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle along with interest.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Palam Tractors versus Shri Jamir Ahmmed 2010(2) CPC 676 (HP State Commission), wherein it has been held that despite replacement of engine of the three wheeler, the defect could not be removed, as such, it was ordered for replacement of the engine of the vehicle and further awarded compensation for harassment. As such, we feel that the above said case law is fully applicable in the facts of the present case, as such, present complaint deserves to be allowed as it is a clear cut case of deficient in service on the part of the OPs, as the OP number 1 has miserably failed to set right the engine of the vehicle in question.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Mahinda and Mahindra Ltd. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Chandan Mondal and others 2013(4) CPJ 486, wherein the complainant visited a number of times to get the tractor repaired during the warranty period and the job cards produced ample evidence to prove that the vehicle in question did have defects and complainant was put to hardship on account of that. It is futile to go into minute/extreme technicalities in order to establish whether the defects pointed out qualifies to be classified as manufacturing defect or not.  It is a hard fact that the consumer, who is a farmer, was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said defective vehicle. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission there was no fault committed by State Commission and the impugned order of the State Commission was upheld.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Malabar Motors versus K.V.Jayarajan and another 2013(4) CPJ 329 (NC), wherein it has been upheld the order of the State Commission returning the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation as the vehicle in question was sent for repairs for number of times to the petitioner as number of defects were there.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with a new one within 15 days of receipt of the vehicle with the OPs from the complainant, failing which the OPs number 1 to 3 shall refund to the complainant the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.61,000/- after taking the delivery of the vehicle as well as documents thereof.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.3,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

8.                     This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 22, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member