Punjab

Moga

CC/16/95

Anaiat Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In person

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                                                                      CC No. 95 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                                     Instituted on: 05.05.2016

                                                                                                                                                                     Decided on: 26.07.2016

 

Anaiat Ali aged about 31 years son of Sh. Liagat Ali, resident of Village, Mandiran Wala Nawan, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Krishna Motors, Nihal Singh Wala Road, Bagha Purana, District Moga, through its Prop/Partner.

 

2.       Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi Pune-411 035, India

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint u/S 12/14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Anaiat Ali, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Gopal Krishan Bansanl, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos.1& 2.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Krishna Motors, Nihal Singh Wala Road, Bagha Purana, District Moga, through its Prop/Partner and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace the Motor Cycle Discover 125, Chassis no. MD2A15B2 1FRD-53892, Engine no.J22RFD-04053, Registration no. PB-29V-3986 worth Rs.53,800/- or to refund Rs. 53,800/- the price of the abovesaid Motorcycle and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that opposite party no.1 is a dealer of Motorcycle and is carrying on its business under the name and style of Krishna Motors, Nihal Singh Wala Road, Bagha Purana, District Moga. The complainant had purchased one motorcycle Discover 125, bearing Chassis no. MD2A15B2 1FRD-53892, Engine no.J22RFD-04053, Registration no. PB-29V-3986 for an amount of Rs. 53,800/- from opposite party no.1 on 14.08.2015. At the time of purchase of said motorcycle the opposite party no.1 assured that the vehicle is perfect and guarantee of the same is for one year and there will be no complaint of any kind. It was astonished to note that after few days, the said vehicle was not working properly. There is manufacturing defect in the engine and gear of the said motorcycle. Engine does not work properly. Further alleged the one day complainant was driving the said vehicle and the wife and children of the complainant were sitting behind the complainant and then the said vehicle was in the bazaar, the vehicle stopped and the complainant was save with the grace of God. Otherwise there was a chance of mis-happening. This incident occurred many times. The complainant approached the office of opposite party no.1 a number of times and requested them either to remove the defect in the said motorcycle or to replace the abovesaid Motorcycle with some other, as there is some manufacturing defect in the engine and same cannot be removed. But opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to replace the same without any rhyme or reason. The complainant also lodged the complaint with the head office, but to no effect. Some other persons have also purchased the similar Motor Cycle from the said company and there are also manufacturing defect in their motorcycles. The service of opposite party no.1 is deficient one and complainant has been harassed un-necessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written replies.

                   Opposite party no.1 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that at the time  of selling said motorcycle the same was in perfect condition and there was no defect in the motorcycle; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering opposite party; that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to effect the reputation of answering opposite party and extort money from them by blackmailing. The actual facts are that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle from answering opposite party on 14.08.2015 and after purchasing the said vehicle the complainant regularly availed the service from answering opposite party time to time and got conducted periodic checkups of said vehicle. But the complainant had never lodged any complaint regarding said vehicle. On merits, it is submitted that the story introduced by the complainant is concocted and highly improbable one. All the allegations levelled by the complainant against answering opposite party are false and baseless. By levelling such false allegations the complainant is trying to damage the reputation of answering opposite party. There is no any type of deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. The all other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.2 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is wrong, against law and facts and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in its present form; that the complaint filed is vague and baseless and without any substantiation of its correctness, hence for want of cogent evidence also the present complaint deserves dismissal with costs; that at the time of selling said motorcycle by their authorized dealer to the complainant, the same was in perfect condition and there was no defect in the motorcycle. It is also submitted here that company takes every step to check the quality of its vehicle before sending the same for sale. The actual facts are that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle from answering opposite party on 14.08.2015 and after purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant regularly availed the service from answering opposite party time to time and got conducted periodic checkups of said vehicle. But the complainant had never lodged any complaint regarding said vehicle with opposite party no.1 or answering opposite party. Moreover, toll free customer care numbers have been clearly mentioned on the service book of the said vehicle. It is also submitted that if there is any type of defect in the said vehicle, then complainant will bring his motorcycle to the workshop of opposite party no.1 and if any defect is found, then the same will be removed; that the answering opposite party is a reputed company in two wheeler segment and complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to effect the reputation of answering opposite party and extort money from them by blackmailing; that the complaint is also complete silent about the service availed for the vehicle. It is also concealed that as to when the free warranty service were availed by the complainant for his vehicle. Further once the vehicle is delivered to the customers and its sale, the opposite party do not have any control or knowledge as to how the vehicle is being used, who are all using it, whether it is maintained properly, whether all the tips given for the efficient performance of the vehicle is being followed by the customers etc. There are some of the vital questions on which there is no evidence. In the absence of it and based only on the bald allegations of the complainant, no adverse orders should be passed which will be in the prejudicial interest of the opposite parties. Further submitted that no motorcycle, which suffers from manufacturing defect, would run so much distance in such a short period. Therefore, it is clear from the above facts that the bike of the complainant was free from all sorts of manufacturing defects. Further submitted that in spite of breach of warranty by the complainant, they are ready to provide the usual service as per the Warranty Terms and Conditions, which provides free warranty services for 2 years from the date of its purchase. This is provided as a backup for any after-sale operational issues faced by the riders of this new technologically superior vehicle, so that customers do not find any difficulties in using the same. Hence, during this period if there is any problem in the vehicle that can be easily taken care of. Further the main preliminary objection is that there is no expert report or opinion or any cogent evidence as required under Section -13 of the CP Act, 1986 is submitted. The allegations are therefore baseless and without any substantiation of its correctness. The complainant has not come with the clean hands before this Forum and has also concealed the true facts and as such is not entitled to get any relief.  On merits, the all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant Anaiat Ali tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, the opposite party no.1 & 2 tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Vikas Setia, as Authorized Person of Bajaj Auto Ex. OPs-1 and affidavit of Sh. Vikas Setia, as Partner of Krishna Motors Ex. OPs-2 and copies of documents Ex. OPs-3 to Ex. OPs-6 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The complainant argued that on 14.08.2015, he purchased a motorcycle Discover 125, bearing Registration no. PB-29V-3986 from opposite party no.1, manufactured by opposite party no.2 by paying an amount of Rs.53,800/- as price of the motorcycle. At the time of sale of motorcycle opposite party no.1 told that the vehicle is perfect and also gave one year warranty, if vehicle suffered from any defect. After few days, the vehicle was not working properly and there was manufacturing defect in the engine and gear of the said motorcycle and engine does not work properly. The motorcycle stopped at once while driving in the traffic, which caused threat to the life of the complainant. The complainant approached to opposite parties a number of times requesting them to removing the defect or to replace the vehicle, as there was manufacturing defect in the engine. But opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to repair or replace the same without any rhyme or reason. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient one and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. The complainant requested opposite parties to admit his rightful claim, but they failed to do the same. Due to the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension as well as financial loss. The opposite parties may be directed to repair or replace the vehicle of the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses.

9.                To controvert the arguments, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 & 2 argued that the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable that the complaint filed is vague and baseless and without any cogent evidence. At the time of sale of said motorcycle, the same was in perfect condition and there was no defect in the motorcycle. The opposite parties take every step to check the quality of its vehicle before sending the same for sale. In fact from the date of purchase i.e. 14.08.2015, the complainant regularly availed the service of motorcycle from opposite party no.1 time to time and got conducted periodic checkups of vehicle in question. Till today, the complainant has never lodged any complaint regarding said problem in the vehicle with opposite parties. Even during the pendency of this complaint, the complainant got the service of his motorcycle done from opposite party no.1, copies of job sheets are OPs-3 to OPs-5 and if there is any type of defect in the vehicle in question, then the complainant can bring his motorcycle to the workshop of opposite parties and if any defect is found, then the same will be removed. The opposite party company is a reputed company and complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to effect the reputation of opposite parties and to extort money from them. The complainant has not placed on record any evidence regarding the alleged defect in his vehicle and did not produce any expert evidence on the same. Further argued that once the vehicle is delivered to the customer after sale, the opposite party do not have any control or knowledge as to how the vehicle is being used, who all are using it, whether it is maintained properly or not? In the absence of it and based only on the bald allegations of the complainant, without any cogent evidence no adverse order can be passed against opposite parties. In view the above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has no suffered any harassment or loss. He filed false and frivolous complaint only to harass the opposite parties and to get undue benefits from them. He failed to produce any evidence regarding the defect in his vehicle. However, as goodwill gesture if there is any defect in the vehicle, then opposite parties are ready to repair and remove the defect under warranty. The present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

10.              We have carefully gone through the file and arguments lead by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle from opposite party no.1, which was manufactured by opposite party no.2 and from the very beginning, there was a manufacturing defect in the engine and gear box of the vehicle and it does not run properly. He requested the opposite parties to remove the defect many times, but they did not give any heed to the request of the complainant. In reply, opposite parties submitted that at the time of sale of the motorcycle the same was in perfect condition and there was no defect in the said vehicle. Moreover, he never approached them with the report of alleged defect in his vehicle. He got regularly service of the vehicle time to time from the opposite parties even during the pendency of present complaint got the service of his vehicle from opposite party no.1 and even at that time he has not reported any defect in his vehicle. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against them only to extort money from them. Learned counsel for opposite parties further submitted that as goodwill gesture even today, they are ready to repair and remove the defect in the vehicle of the complainant under warranty conditions.

11.              In peculiar circumstances, the present complaint is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair the motorcycle of the complainant and to remove the defect in the motorcycle, if any, free of costs under warranty conditions. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1500/-(One thousand five hundred only) to the complainant as litigation expenses. Opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 26.07.2016

 

                         (Bupinder Kaur)         (Vinod Bala)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)

                              Member                     Member                            President