STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1..      Hero MotoCorp Ltd., 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,              New  Delhi 57, through its Legal Manager.

2.      M/s Heritage Auto Sales, SCO No.144-145, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,                        through    its Authorized Signatory

                                                               ……Appellants

V e r s u s

Kamla Devi wife of Late Sh.Raj Singh, Resident of H.No.4236, Ambedkar Awas Yojna, Palsora, Sector 56, Chandigarh, through her attorney Sh.Manjit Kumar.    

                                                  …….Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 06.02.2019 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 336/2018.

BEFORE:          JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                            MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER

Argued by:  Mr.Raj K. Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 have filed this appeal against order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondent /complainant.

2..              The complainant purchased  a motorcycle on 3.7.2017 on making payment of Rs.54,641/-. After purchase, starting problem was found in the vehicle.  It was taken to an authorized service Centre of the appellants/OPs.  On getting advice from the said Centre, engine kit of the motorcycle was changed. When  went to take delivery of the vehicle, the complainant found that despite changing of engine kit, there existed  problem of starting in the motorcycle.  In the month of March,2018, the complainant met with an accident because engine of the motorcycle ceased abruptly.  The complainant received bodily injury. The vehicle was got repaired from the service centre. Despite repair, starting problem still remained there. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop. After 15 days, when its engine again ceased, the motorcycle remained in the authorized workshop for about a month. However, even the repairer failed to remove the defect. The vehicle was taken back by the complainant on 24.4.2018. Again on 26.4.2018 starting problem was found existing in the motorcycle. It was again taken to the workshop. It was repaired. On return journey, engine oil of the vehicle started leaking. It was again taken to the workshop on 28.4.2018. However, service centre refused to repair the vehicle stating that it had a manufacturing defect. The complainant then approached appellant No.1/OP NO.1, however, request made by her failed to yield any result, which compelled her to file a consumer complaint before the Forum. 

3.        Upon notice, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance despite service and vide order dated 19.7.2018 it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

              OP No.2 filed its reply, contents of which have been recorded by the Forum as under ; 

“Stated that the complainant has got his motorcycle serviced and visited the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 on multiple occasions on 15.9.2017, 4.10.2017, 28.10.2017, 17.3.2018 and 28.4.2018 among other dates and during all/any of these free and paid services, no such major problem had ever been reported by the complainant, as alleged in complaint.  It is stated that whenever the complainant reported any minor problem in the vehicle, the same was duly taken care of by the service team of Opposite Party No.1 and the vehicle was duly returned free from any defect (Annexure-A Colly.). It is also stated that the complainant never approached Opposite Party regarding any engine defect in the vehicle.  It is submitted that on 28.4.2018, the complainant visited the service centre only for general service which placed on record as Annexure C-7.  It is denied that the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect, as alleged.”

                   Other allegations levelled were also denied.

4.              Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, found it as a matter of fact that the motorcycle was suffering from a manufacturing defect. The complainant had to take it to the authorized service centre again and again. Despite affecting heavy repairs, the defect could not be removed. The Forum ordered the OPs to replace the vehicle with a new one or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.54,641/-  towards price of the vehicle and Rs.10,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  When recording above finding, it was observed as under ;

“The complainant has purchased the motorcycle in question from Opposite Party No.1 at a price of Rs.54,641/- on 3.7.2017 vide invoice Ann.C-1. The complainant being unsatisfied with the running condition of the motorcycle, took it to the Service Centre of OPs on 15.9.2017, 4.10.2017, 21.12.2017, 17.3.2018 and 28.4.2018 (Ann.C-3 to C-7) respectively.  On 4.10.2017, as per Tax Invoice (Ann.C-4), the Service Centre of the OPs changed the engine kit of the motorcycle in question.  On 17.3.2018, as per the Tax Invoice (Ann.C-6), the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties changed the Crank Shaft Composite Assembly as well as Gear Primary Drive of the Motorcycle in question. The Service Centre of the OPs also changed the Gasket Cylinder Head of the Motorcycle on 17.3.2018, then again on 28.4.2018. 

         The Tax Invoice with regard to repair of the Motorcycle in question, as produced by the complainant, explicitly lead to the conclusion that the motorcycle in question has extensive major defects in its engine as well as crank shaft, which is backbone of motorcycle. The problems in the motorcycle in question seems to be in existence due to some manufacturing frailties i.e. in the manufacturing process.  The problems in the motorcycle in question, as projected in the complaint while in use, are not frivolous or imaginary, but faced by the user in its reality.”

5.               It is correct that as and when the motorcycle was taken to the workshop it was repaired. The perusal of job cards make it very clear that virtually the entire engine of the vehicle was changed when it was taken to the workshop from time to time. Instead of enjoying the vehicle, it appears, that the complainant had purchased a problem causing lot of mental harassment to her. The Forum has rightly noted on looking to the contents of the job cards that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle and rightly ordered its replacement or refund of its price.

6.              Counsel for the appellants has stated that such a view cannot be taken without getting expert opinion to say that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. To support his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in  the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another AIR 2006 SC 1586 and also of  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Md.Hassan Khalid Haidar Vs General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Revision Petition no.525 of 2018 decided on 8.6.2018. We have gone through both the  judgments and found that  the same are not applicable to case of the appellants. In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.(supra) it was noted as a matter of fact by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the vehicle was not even taken to the workshop to know whether there existed any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or not. In that case relief was granted to the complainant simply on the basis of some admission made by the appellant in its reply. There was no expert evidence on record and also job cards were not placed on record to form an opinion whether there existed any manufacturing defect or not. Same is the situation in the case of Md.Hassan Khalid Haidar (supra). The National commission has categorically stated that unless there exists any expert opinion to prove  existence  of manufacturing defect,  finding cannot be given against the manufacturer that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  In the present case, detailed reference has been made to the job cards to say that extensive repairs were done and  virtually the entire engine was dismantled and repaired and further vehicle had ceased  when in journey causing an accident.  

 7.             In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum is quite justified and no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. Accordingly  the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage,  with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

8 .          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties,    free of charge.

9.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.