DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 405 of  27.9.2019

                                      Decided on:           10.1.2023

Ramesh Gupta aged 36 years S/o Sh.Mewa Lal R/o Asha Ram Colony, Nabha, District Patiala.                                                                 …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Kissan Motors, Nabha Road Bhadson, District Patiala through its Prop./partner
2. Hero MotoCorp Ltd.,34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, India, through its C.M.D./M.D.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member  

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Surjit Singh Nahar,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Chamandeep Mittal,counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.Vikas Mittal,counsel for OP No.2.                                    

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Ramesh Gupta S/o Sh. Mewa Lal        (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Kissan Motors and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a scooter make Hero Moto Corp Duet Fwt v/x bearing engine No.JF33AAGC00081, chassis No.MBLJF16ESGGC00159,Model,2016, having registration No.PB-11-CA-1630 vide invoice No.1382 dated 22.7.2016 from OP No.1, for an amount of Rs.50,370/, with the warranty clause of 5 years or 50000KMs, whichever is earlier, from the date of purchase. It is averred that on the very next day of the purchase, the scooter started giving mechanical problems. Complainant approached OP No.1 who sent the scooter to the service station for repair. Scooter was repaired but still there was various problems like starting problem, brake do not work properly, scooter stops while running on the road, sound in gear, leaking oil, loose nuts, rim defective, sound in engine etc. which were brought to the notice of OP No.1 but all in vain. It is further averred that the said scooter was also got repaired from Chittosho Motor, Patiala but the problem is intact. There is thus manufacturing defect in the scooter and the OPs have sold defective scooter to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs  to either replace the scooter with new one, the same being under warranty or to refund an amount of Rs.53070/-alongwith compensation and costs to  the complainant.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their respective written statements.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 it took various preliminary objections that after purchasing the scooter from it, complainant has availed only first free service from OP No.1 and thereafter never approached OP No.1 and rather preferred the services from the other authorized service centers of Hero Motor Corp Co. Ltd..
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the scooter in question from OP No.1. It is averred that there  was some nominal defect in the vehicle which was rectified by OP No.1.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, at the outset, it is submitted that OP No.1 is the authorized representative/ authorized dealers of products manufactured by OP No.2 / HMCL and engages in selling, carrying out service and repair of the said two wheelers. It is pleaded that the complainant is regularly availing the services from service centers namely Zamindara Autos & Chittosho Motors  since 19.5.2017 and thereafter never visited OP No.1.
7. Further plea of OP No.2 is that the vehicle in question has covered distance of 29706K.M. as on 11.11.2019 with an average of 24.01 K.M. per day and the complainant is still using the scooter without any problem . It is further pleaded that the complainant has intentionally put the list of so many defects just to give an impression that a defective vehicle was provided to him. Thus the present complaint is false and frivolous. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished Ex.CA self declaration of the complainant alongwith documents,Exs.C1 copy of invoice/delivery challan (two pages), Ex.C2 copy of vehicle history (8 pages) and closed the evidence.
9. In rebuttal Ld.counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sidharth Tiwari, Authorizsed representative of Hero Moto Corp alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 copy of vehicle history card, Ex.OP2 copy of limitation of warranty policy and closed the evidence.
10. Ld. counsel for OP  No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Manish Kumar, Prop. of Kissan Motors, Nabha Road, Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala alongwith document vehicle history card already exhibited as Ex.C2 with the request the same may be read as evidence on behalf of OP No.1 also and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased Duet Scooter on 22.7.2016 vide invoice Ex.C1 from OP No.1. As per the terms and conditions, warranty period of the Duet scooter was 5 years or 50,000KMs , whichever is earlier, from the date of purchase.
13. The grievance of the complainant is that immediately from the date of its purchase, scooter started giving problems and he was forced to visit the service center of the OPs. The problem was rectified by the OPs with the assurance that it will not give any problem in future. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that various problems like starting problem, brake do not work properly, scooter stops while running on the road, sound in the gear, oil leakage, loose nut volts, defective rim, sound in engine from to time were continued in the vehicle and the complainant had to visit the OPs for rectifying the same.
14. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that although scooter was sold by them to the complainant, however, he never approached them for any problem and as such they are not at fault. The ld. counsel has further argued that if , the complainant had visited their service center for any problem they would have attended it. However, it is admitted by OP No.1 that there was some nominal defect in the vehicle immediately after the date of the purchase, which was rectified by them and there was no mechanical problem in the engine as alleged by the complainant. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has further argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such the question of replacing the scooter with new one or to refund the price of the same is not justified.
15. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant did not avail the services from the service center of OP No.1 and instead visited other authorized service centers of OP No.2 who have not been made party to the present complaint. The ld. counsel has further argued that the vehicle had already covered the distance of 29706 Kms. as on 11.11.2019 which works out for an average of almost 24K.M. per day. Ld. Counsel further argued that the vehicle is covered under warranty for five years or 50000 kms whichever is earlier from the date of purchase and they are ready and willing to provide their services for the repair of the vehicle. The ld. counsel has also argued that the vehicle is made up of various components which are repairable in such a way that these can be easily replaced without affecting the performance of the vehicle in any manner. He has further argued that there is minor wear and tear with the running of the vehicle and the defects pointed out by the complainant are not the manufacturing defects and are due to the constant running of the vehicle.           
16. From the perusal of Vehicle History card,Ex.C2, it has been observed that there was problem in the vehicle immediately after the purchase of the same as the vehicle was brought  to the authorized service centre of OP No.2 by the complainant repeatedly and after setting the complaint of sound in engine by OP No.1, there was problem in the braking system on 19.5.2017 and again on 22.5.2017. Further there was also  problem in oil seal, ball bearing  and various nuts and bolts  were also replaced on the same day i.e. 22.5.2017. The complainant again visited the service center of OP No.2 on 26.5.2017 for replacement of gasket of emission case. Relay has also been replaced on 28.7.2017 and thereafter on 26.2.2018 protector muffler had been replaced. Even after that complainant kept on visiting the service centers of the OPs repeatedly and during these visits various bulbs and seals, belt drive, roller weights, gear counter, shaft drive etc. etc. had to be replaced for which many a times complainant had to pay extra charges to the OPs. The problem in gear, relay, oil seals, tantamounts to providing a defective vehicle to the complainant.
17. From the above, it transpires that there were number of problems in the smooth functioning of the said scooter within a period of three years from the date of its purchase, which also tantamounts providing a defective vehicle to the complainant. Further the plea of ld. counsel of the OPs that the vehicle was not got serviced from OP No.1 is not justified as the same was got serviced from the authorized service centers of OP No.2.
18. In view of our aforesaid consideration, we partly allow the complaint with the following directions to the OPs;

To replace the scooter in question with a new one of similar / equivalent configuration OR

To refund the amount of Rs.50,370/-to the complainant.

The complainant is also directed to handover the old scooter in question simultaneously to OPs in as found condition.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.              

19.   The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                                 G.S.Nagi                        S.K.AGGARWAL

                                                 Member                       President