Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/13/2016

Sukhdev singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sanjeev chopra

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 13 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 25.01.2016                        

                                                     Date of decision    : 31.07.2018

Sukhdev Singh son of Amarjit Singh R/o village Ladpur, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Krishna Motors, Authorized Dealer: LML Ltd., Gobindgarh Road, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Gurminder Singh C/o Krishna Motors, Authorized Dealer: LML Ltd., Gobindgarh road, Amloh, near OK Tree resorts, Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. LML Limited, Registered office, C-3, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur-208022, India.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                        

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

 

Present :        Sh. Sanjeev Chopra, Adv.Cl for complainant.

                      Sh.Raman Moudgil, Adv.Cl.for OPs

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

 

                      Complainant, Sukhdev Singh son of Amarjit Singh R/o village Ladpur, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a LML Scooter Star Euro 200 CC ES, colour M.Gray, having Engine No.E29E3031977, Chassis No. MD722 GAEME3193735 Trade certificate No.PB-23K-3004 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 13.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.55,500/-. Present registration Number of the said scooter is PB-23R-3398. After first free service of the said scooter, the same has not been providing proper service to the complainant and was not plied properly and it automatically comes to halt and the engine stops working just sometime after 2-3 KMs, sometime after 5-6 KMs or 10-11 KMs or 15-16 Kms.  Thus there is inherent fault, imperfection and shortcoming in the quality and standard of the said scooter, which is required to be maintained by the OPs. The said defects were brought to the notice of OPs No.1 and 2 many times and even at the time of service of the said scooter and every time OPs assured that necessary repair has been done and now it will not come to halt or stop  but all in vain.  Thereafter on 05.09.2015, when the scooter automatically stopped on the road, the complainant contacted OP No.2 on mobile phone but OP No.2 behaved rudely and stated that the defect cannot be removed.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the price of the scooter i.e. Rs.55,500/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.45,000/- as damages for causing mental tension, agony and harassment.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint, OPs stated that at the time of sale, the complainant was fully satisfied for the perfect functioning of the equipment. The detailed owner manual was also supplied with the equipment wherein the proper instructions for the operation of the scooter during the specified kilometer is also given but the defects so reported in the complaint are silent about the occurrence of the same at the speed. A number of service has been effectively rendered by the OPs/dealer and in the service certificate, the said defects are never reflected. It is further stated that there is neither any suppression nor concealment of any alleged defect, as the manufacturing company is of world repute and the manufacturing defect is never allowed by such a reputed concern to travel to the hands of consumer. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-10,  true copies of documents Ex. C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurminder Singh As Ex. OP1/1.  The OPs failed to tender more evidence despite several opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the OPs was closed by order.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the said scooter was purchased from OP No.1 on 13.10.2014 by the complainant. After first service, the said scooter started creating problems like coming to a halt automatically after 2-3 KMs/ 5-6 KMs/10-11 KMs/15-16 Kms. The said defect was brought to the notice of OP No.1 & 2 many times and also at the time of Ist service of the scooter, but the said defect could not be rectified by the OPs. He argued that the defect appears to be a manufacturing defect. Hence, he pleaded for exchange of scooter with a new one or refund of the price of the scooter.
6. Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the service of the scooter was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The said scooter does not have any manufacturing defect. He pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
7. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced on record report of expert i.e. Jagdambay Automobiles Sirhind and heard oral arguments. We are of the opinion that the OPs through tried their best to rectify the said defect, but could not do so. The defect still prevails in the said scooter. The report of the expert-Jagdambay Automobiles, Chandigarh Road, Sirhind, though declined by the OPs, confirms the said defect and has recommended that the vehicle needs/requires some part, which are not available with them. It further recommended that the vehicle be transferred to the manufacturing company itself. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OPs No.1 & 2 to get the said defective scooter examined thoroughly by their own expert or some other expert and rectify the reported defect in the vehicle, even by changing the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. However, if the defect is irreparable, the said defective scooter may be got exchanged with a new one from the manufacturing company of the said scooter or arrange refund of the price of the said scooter. Let the order be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. We also find that the complainant is entitled to lumpsum Rs.5,000/- for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges to be paid by the OPs .

8.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.07.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 31.07.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

   President

 

(Inder Jit)       

 Member