Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 27-08-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas passed in C.C. No. 118/2014.

Complainant’s case, in short, is that he purchased a motor cycle from the OP No. 2 on 19-11-2011.  Within a week, the Complainant faced various kinds of problems with the said motorcycle and so he took the motor cycle to the workshop of the OP No. 4.  After checking the motor cycle, one of the mechanics of the OP No. 4 assured the Complainant those were routine problems of a new motor cycle and the same would disappear after 2/3 servicing.  Thereafter, necessary servicing of the motor cycle was done following the service schedule mentioned in the service manual book through the OP No. 4, but some of the problems that the Complainant witnessed from the very beginning refused to go.  Therefore, the Complainant made contact with the OP No. 2 and as per its advice, the Complainant took the motor cycle to the OP No. 3 on 11-11-2012.  After necessary check-up, the said service centre raised bills worth Rs. 1,755.08 and Rs. Rs. 1,492.14 on 11-11-2012 and 20-10-2013, respectively.  However, in spite of aforesaid services against proper charges within warranty period, Complainant faced some problems and therefore, again approached the OP No. 3 on 06-02-2014.  Allegedly, on 07-02-2014, when the Complainant visited the said workshop, he was handed over a bill of Rs. 10,465/- by the service centre.  Feeling dejected, he sent Lawyer’s Notice to the OPs on 25-02-2014.  However, despite receipt of such notice, the OPs kept mum forcing the Complainant to file the instant complaint.

By filing a W.V., it is stated by the OP Nos. 1&2 that it was obligatory on the part of the Complainant to avail of all the free as well as paid services as per scheduled mentioned in the warranty in order to be eligible to get warranty benefits.  However, the Complainant neglected to adhere to the said schedule.  The Complainant, after initially visiting OP No. 4 for servicing, actually visited the said workshop for the first time on 11-11-2012 after running 13,241 kms. i,e., after one year from the date of purchase.  Further case of these OPs is that the battery is an OEM product with separate warranty period of 18 months from the date of sale and was replaced under warranty during service on 11-11-2012.  Rest of the charges raised in the bill was for paid labour and parts which either needed replacement under regular maintenance or were not covered under warranty or for parts which had no relation to the Complainant’s alleged complaint like starting problem, gear shifting trouble, clutch trouble etc.  As per Company recommendations in order to ensure smooth and trouble free performance of the motorcycle and as mentioned in the Warranty Terms and Conditions of the Owner’s manual, after all 6 free services were over, Complainant needed to avail of paid services within 60 days of last service or at an interval of every 2000 kms. whichever was earlier.  However, the Complainant availed of next paid service on 17-10-2013 at 26,915 kms., almost 11 months after the last service and after running for another 13,674 kms.  Thus, the Complainant again breached the maintenance schedule.  As a result of this, all the requested jobs were done and parts replaced on paid basis.  It is pointed out by these OPs that most of the parts replaced were either regular maintenance related parts or parts not covered under warranty like wear and tear which had no relation with the Complainant’s alleged complaints regarding defects in the motorcycle.  It is stated that battery warranty as provided by Exide was for 18 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, i.e., till 18-05-2013.  As the battery was replaced on 17-10-2013, the Complainant was charged for the same and the same was also duly explained to the Complainant.  Thereafter, the Complainant availed of service on 06-02-2014 at 30,675 kms. after running another 3,760 kms.  and after almost 3.5 months from the previous service.  As regards Complainant’s complaint of low millage, poor pick-up, white smoke etc., on inspection it was found that parts like Crankshaft component, cylinder kit etc. had worn out and needed replacement.  Those parts, whose performance was directly related to regular maintenance and could be availed under warranty, if the recommended service schedule had been maintained by the Complainant.  The remaining parts replaced were either regular maintenance or wear and tear parts.  Thus, it is claimed by these OPs that all charges raised to the Complainant were genuine as the Complainant’s warranty had lapsed due to irregular and improper service maintained by the Complainant and were as per terms and conditions of the warranty of the company, all of which were clearly mentioned in the Owner’s manual.  Thereafter, the Complainant visited the said workshop for general repair job on 23-02-2014 and for regular paid service on 07-04-2014 and that day, the Complainant reported no issue  with the motorcycle. 

Decision with reasons

We have heard the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the material on record.

It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that from the very beginning he was grappled with different kinds of problems with the motorcycle in question.  Be it mentioned here that the Appellants have dealt with the issue at great length in their W.V. filed before the Ld. District Forum.  For the purpose of brevity of discussion, although we refrain from mentioning the same here, it is noteworthy that the Respondent No. 1 could not pick any hole into such contention of the Appellants. 

From the material on record, we find that the Respondent No. 1 did not frequent the workshop of the Company regularly for the purpose of repairing his motorcycle, but went there as when need arose.  Apart from availing of free services, as it appears from the material on record, the Respondent No. 1 visited the workshop for the purpose of doing necessary servicing of his motorcycle on 11-11-2012, 17-10-2013, 06-02-2014, 23-02-2014 and 07-04-2014.  If the motorcycle was indeed suffering from any inherent problems, no doubt, the Respondent No. 1 would have to visit the workshop of the Company quite often and it would surely be a tough ask for him to run more than 30,000 kms. 

Another grievance of the Respondent No. 1 is that although the said motorcycle was under warranty, the service centre of the Appellants charged him for rendering required services. 

It is noteworthy here that the Warranty Card under the Heading “Limitations of Warranty” stipulates that, ‘The warranty shall not apply if all free services/paid services/oil top-ups are not availed from the authorized Hero Honds workshops, as per their recommended schedule”. 

Taking into consideration the fact that the Respondent No. 1 did not follow the maintenance schedule strictly as stipulated in the service manual provided to him, we feel that while the Respondent No. 1 himself violated warranty conditions, crying foul over non-replacement of parts free of cost is not tenable. It is obligatory on the part of parties to a contract to religiously adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract. 

We have also taken due note of the fact that certain parts of the motorcycle like gaskets, bulb, plastic parts, chain were not covered under the Warranty.  Therefore, the authorized workshop was fully justified billing the Respondent No. 1 for the same.  Also, it appears that the Exide batter was replaced after expiry of warranty period (18 months).  Thus, we find no irregularity in billing the Respondent No. 1 for replacing the same. 

It is further clarified by the Appellants that in order to keep the motorcycle in healthy condition, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent no. 1 to ensure that regular maintenance was done as stipulated in the service manual.  It is the case of the Appellants that while attending to the complaint of the Respondent No. 1, the workshop concerned found that parts like Crankshaft component, cylinder kit etc. had worn out and needed replacement leading to low millage, poor pick up, generation of white smoke etc.  According to the Appellants, performance of those parts was directly linked to regular maintenance.  On a thoughtful consideration of the said averment of the Appellants, we see no reason to differ with their contention. 

Above all, we find that the Respondent No. 1 did not file any expert report to substantiate his allegation of manufacturing defect in respect of the motorcycle in question. 

Thus, on an in depth scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not come across any laxity/irregularity on the part of the workshop concerned for realizing requisite charges from the Respondent No. 1 for the services rendered by it.  As noted above, the allegation of manufacturing defect falls flat for want of cogent documentary proof in this regard. 

Thus, we see no reason whatsoever to uphold the impugned order.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/1109/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed being bereft of any merit.