Karnataka
Chitradurga
CC/52/2015
Girish H.M. S/o. G.V.Maheshwarappa - Complainant(s)
Versus
M.V.Srinivas Owner of Jairam Bajaj Authorised Dealers for Bajaj Two and Three Wheelers, - Opp.Party(s)
Shri.T.Manjunath
12 Jan 2016
ORDER
COMPLAINT FILED ON :03/06/2015
DISPOSED ON:12/01/2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA
CC. NO. 52/2015 DATED: 12th JANUARY 2016 |
PRESENT :- SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH PRESIDENT B.A., LL.B.,
SRI.H.RAMASWAMY, MEMBER
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,
B.A., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Girish H.M, S/p G.V. Mahehwarappa, R/o D.S. Halli Village, Chitradurga Taluk & Distrct.
(Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate) |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. M.V. Srinivas, Owner, Sri Jairam Bajaj, Authorised Dealers for Bajaj Two and Three Wheeler, RTO Road, Chitradurga-577501.
2. Bajaj Auto Limited, S.No. 51A, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pune-411035, India, Reptd by Its Manageer.
(Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate) |
SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.
ORDER
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite party (here in called OPs) to direct the OPs to replace the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 EC 4568 and to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest and also loss of income and to grant such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant has purchased two wheeler bearing Reg. No.KA-16-EC-4568 Pulsar 150 C.C for a sum of Rs.71,677/- from OPs on 31.01.2015 with the financial assistance of Bajaj Finance Limited, Chitradurga Branch office and its Head office is at Pune. The said finance company doing its business for its gain at Chitradurga in the said OP No.1 showroom and the same was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. OPs gave warranty to the said vehicle for the period of two years. Complainant began to make use of the said vehicle since from 31.01.2015 and it is not giving good service to the complainant and it caused trouble for one or the other reason and within three months it went to repairs on so many occasions. Inspite of so many repairs, the problems of the said vehicle was not set right by the OPs. Complainant left the said vehicle for so many occasions on the following dates:
Sl. No. | Date | Repair of the complainant vehicle KA-16-EC-4568 | Problems |
1 | 16.02.2015 | Respondent No.1 | Offing complaint |
2 | 08.05.2015 | R2-Akshaya Bajaj, Sira Branch | 2nd Free service care lock, Fork sound, Bore oil leakage, Chain Sprocket sound, offing complaint, Engine overheat, Engine rough sound, batter blink |
3 | 11.05.2015 | Respondent No.1 | Bore oil leakage, two stud replace |
In between 16.02.2015 to 08.05.2015 the complainant went to OP No.1 service station so many occasions to get repairs of the said vehicle. But the OP No.1 made repairs to the said vehicle. But the OP No.1 has not given any receipt/records for having repair the said vehicle belongs to the complainant and not recorded the complainant's say about the trouble of the said vehicle. On 11.03.2015 OP No.1 advised the complainant to take back the said vehicle to Bangalore service station of OP No.2 to get repair of the said vehicle. But the complainant refused for the said repair because the complainant demanded the said OP No.1 that it is its duty to get repair the said vehicle, it may sent the vehicle to the company. So, in view of this reason the OP No.1 cancelled the same. In spite of so many service from the OP No.1, the OP No.1 was unable to set right the problems of the complainant's two wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA-16-EC-4568. Therefore, the complainant demanded the OPs to replace the said two wheeler vehicle and to give new vehicle and to give compensation, and the OPs refused to replace the said vehicle and to give compensation for the same. So, the complainant got issued legal notice to OPs, the same has been served on them. But no reply is given by the OPs. Hence, this complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Forum for replacing the said vehicle or to give compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. OPs are not able to set right the problems of the said vehicle belongs to the complainant inspite of so many services from the OPs since from 31.01.2015 and the said problems are due to deficiency in quality of the parts of the said vehicle.
3. Complainant further stated that, on account of the said problems of the vehicle the complainant is not able to do his service. He is working at Maruthi Cements and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, on account of the fork problems of the vehicle, the complainant is removed from the service and lost his income and suffering from back pain and also on account of continuous problem with the vehicle, he was suffering from mental tension on account of non performance of his work.
4. Complainant further stated that, there may be warranty from the OPs for a period of two years. How long the complainant is going to repair the said vehicle after the close of warranty period from his pocket money. So it cause great damage to the complainant on account of occurring of problems of the said two wheeler vehicle. Therefore, now the complainant has filed this complaint for the replacement of the two wheeler vehicle KA-16-EC-4568 and to give compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest.
5. The cause of action for the complaint has been at Chitradurga when the complainant purchased the vehicle from OPs on 31.01.2015 and also on account of regular occurring of problems of the vehicle since from 31.01.2015 and the OPs are not able to set right the problems of the vehicle on account of deficiency in service and quality of the vehicle, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum and prayed for allow the complaint with cost.
6. On the service of notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable either in law or facts, hence it is liable to be dismissed in limine. These OPs reserves their right to file additional objections or additional version to the above said complaint if necessary at any point of time with the leave of the Hon'ble Forum. The complaint filed by the complainant is premature one and barred by jurisdiction. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also mis-joinder of the parties. The contents of averments made in the para Nos.2,3 and 4 are true and admitted by the OPs. Anyhow, these OPs submit that the warranty period given is two years but with the terms and conditions of the company shown in the warranty manual. It is fairly stated by these OPs that the complainant has instructed the OP No.1 to enter the details for job card and then he has requested the OP No.1 that not to do any service to the said vehicle since he is intending to get service in Bangalore for his vehicle. At the request of the said complainant, the OP No.1 has cancelled the said job card but the complainant has entered the false story and false allegations made by him in his complaint for the said fact.
7. OPs have further stated that the complainant is false to allege in para No.7 of the complaint that "Inspite of so many service from the OP No.1, the OP No.1 is unable to set-right the problems of the complainant's two wheeler vehicle bearing KA-16 EC-4568. Therefore, the complainant demanded the OPs to replace the said two wheeler vehicle and to give new vehicle and to give compensation, and the OPs refused to replace the said vehicle and to give compensation for the same". But it is true to say in para No.7 of the complaint that "the complainant had got issued the legal notice to OPs, the same has been served on them. But no reply is given by the OPs. It is fairly stated by these OPs that, the OPs are intending to give reply to the said legal notice sent by the complainant. Meanwhile, the complainant has demanded in his legal notice dated 23.04.2015 to replace the said vehicle within two months for which these OPs have prepared the reply to the said legal notice. In the meantime, the complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum before completion of two months as the time is mentioned in his legal notice for compliance of the same. That is to say that the complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum on 03.06.2015 and these OPs have received the notices from the Forum very prior to the time given by the complainant to act upon his notice or not to act upon his notice. As per the notice of the complainant, the time will be expired for giving reply or for compliance or for anything, the time period is 23.06.2015 but the complainant has filed the complaint against to the terms of his legal notice. Hence, the complaint is premature one.
8. OPs have further stated that the complainant is false to allege in para No.8 of the complaint that, the OPs are not able to set right the problems of the said vehicle belongs to the complainant inspite of so many services from the OPs since from 31.01.2015. The said problems are due to deficiency in quality of the parts of the said vehicle and deficiency in service of OPs. Thev complainant has created and imagined the false stories in para No.10 of the complaint and the complainant has not at all paid any amount to the OPs except Oil charges and consumables which were not covered under the warrantee manual.
9. There is no action for this complaint and the alleged cause of action made by the complainant is created, concocted and imaginary to file this false complaint against these OP. It is true that the complainant had purchased the aforesaid motor cycle in question from the OP No.1. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said motor cycle and given the warranty for a period of two years or 30,000 Kilo Meters whichever is earlier for the parts of the vehicle only to be repair or replace if it is repairable or replaceable except some of the wear and tear parts of the vehicle as per User's Manual. The complainant might have not read the "Owner's Manual" which was given at the time of purchase of the said "Owner's Manual" contains all the dos and don't of the vehicle for its better use and for getting best performance from the vehicle. It is fairly stated by the OPs that the complainant after the purchase of the said motor cycle, he was came with some minute problems but falsely stated in his notice and complaint, anyhow that was clearly rectified and cured by the mechanic of the OP No.1 with free of cost without charging anything from the complainant on the same day itself. Again the complainant has rushed to the showroom of OP No.1 for attending the regular free services without any complaint of problems by the complainant in the said motor cycle on the said dates. After attending the same, the complainant has stated his satisfaction regarding the service. After ascertaining the nature of problems alleged by the complainant that they are minute and minor problems and the same are arising by wrong usage and mishandling of the motor cycle only against the conditions and norms prevailed by the Bajaj Auto Limited, anyhow the same are rectified and cured. Then the complainant had satisfied with the service of the OP No.1 and taken back the said vehicle. Hence these OPs stated that the complainant should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs. Therefore, there is no need for making all these false and frivolous claims.
10. These OPs further stated that there is concealment of true facts also calls for dismissal of this complaint. On the principles of equity, as the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands since there are no any manufacturing defects found in the said two wheeler motor cycles. The complainant has to prove his case with some necessary cogent evidence. The complainant even today being used the said vehicle extensively. Further it is submitted that, even the minor routine problems, which were reported, has been already stands fully attended and the grievances if any stands fully redressed, by the OPs. Further it was observed during the services that, even this minor problem arose only because the complainant has not maintained and used the vehicle properly. Therefore, the complainant should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs.
11. It is submitted by these OPs that, there is no any 'Expert Report or Expert Opinion' submitted by the complainant, as required under Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to prove his allegations. Therefore, the relief claimed are nothing but speculative and abuse of the process of this Forum. Therefore, these OPs have stated that there is no any problems found in the said motor cycle. There is no any problem for replace of the motor cycle or cost of the motor cycle by the Bajaj Auto Limited. These OPs have clearly given the service to the customer. Even then the complainant is intending to get wrongful claim by causing wrongful loss to the OPs without any reasonable cause, hence the complaint is to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant has availed the good services from the OP No.1 and there is no problems absolutely in the above said motor cycle. The said motor cycle is running clearly without any defects. The complaint filed by the complainant is lacks with bonafide and not supported any of the documentary evidence or technical evidence to substantiate his claim. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is not at all maintainable and the documents produced by the complainant are created, concocted and imaginary to file this false complaint only and prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.
12. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed documents, the same were got marked as Ex A-1 to A-14.
13. On behalf of OPs one Shri. M.P. Srinivas S/o M.B. Panduranga Setty, Partner of M/s Jairam Bajaj, Chitradurga examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in which reiterated the contents of version and filed one document and the same was got marked as Ex.B-1.
14. Heard the arguments.
15. Now the Points arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, he had purchased two wheeler Bajaj Pulsar-150 CC vehicle bearing No.KA-16-EC-4568 for valuable consideration of Rs.71,677/- from OP No.1 on 31.01.2015 with the financial assistance of Bajaj Finance Ltd., Chitradurga Branch and the OPs gave warranty to the said vehicle for the period of two years and he is the customer of the OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainant proves that, from the date of purchase the vehicle is giving manufactured problems in the vehicle, the said vehicle went to repairs on so many occasions and inspite of so many repairs, the defects or problems of the vehicle is not set right by the OPs and the OPs were unable to set right the problems/defects of the complainant's vehicle bearing No.KA-16-EC-4568 and thereby OPs have committed deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?
Point No.3:- What order?
16. Our findings on the above points are as below.
Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.
Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.
Point No.3:- As per the final order.
::REASONS::
17. Point Nos. 1 & 2:- We like to discuss the Point No.1 & 2 simultaneously for the sake of convenience. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the new Bajaj Pulsar 150-CC two wheeler vehicle for valuable consideration of Rs.71,677/- from OP No.1 on 31.01.2015 with the financial assistance of Bajaj Finance Co. Ltd.,. It is not in dispute that, the OP No.1 is the dealer of OP No.2 and given the warranty for a period of two years to the complainant vehicle. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the customer of OPs. It is not in dispute that the complainant has issued legal notice through his Advocate on 23.04.2015, the said notice duly served to the OPs. But no reply was given by the OPs. It is only in dispute that the vehicle Pulsar 150-CC purchased by the complainant is suffering from manufacturing defects and the OPs are unable to set right the problems/defects in the complainant's vehicle thereby OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.
18. To prove his case, complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in which he reiterated the contents of the complaint and filed 14 documents like legal notice dated 23.04.2015 issued by the complainant through his counsel to the OPs, invoice-cum-delivery note (Tax Invoice) issued by the OP No.1 in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.71,677/-, Form of cover note issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., cash bill dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.390/-, Job Card dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 to the complainant vehicle, Job Card dated 11.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1 to the complainant vehicle, Invoice dated 10.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1, Invoice dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1, Insurance Policy, Attested true copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the RTO, Chitradurga, Attested true copy of the Job Card dated 08.05.2015 issued by the Akshaya Bajaj, Sira, Attested true copy of the Tax Invoice (Cash) dated 09.05.2015, Attested true copy of India Post details. The above said documents got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14. On perusal of the Ex.A-2 document clearly shows that, the complainant purchased the New Bajaj Pulsar – 150 CC vehicle for a sum of Rs.71,677/- from OP No.1 with the financial assistance of the Bajaj Finance Ltd., on 30.01.2015. It is not in dispute that, Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-9 documents shows that the complainant taken the Insurance Policy from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., by paying the amount of Rs.1,924/- towards the insurance amount to his vehicle. It shows the policy covers the risk from 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2016. Ex.A-10 true copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the RTO, Chitradurga shows that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16-EC-4568, Ex.A-4, Bill dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Jairam Bajaj, Hiriyur, for a sum of Rs.390/-, Ex.A-7 Invoice dated 10.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.390/- and Ex.A-8 Invoice dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.350/- towards purchase of Engine Oil and KIT.CONE KIT respectively. Ex.A-7 and 8 shows the complainant was taken his vehicle for service to the OP No.1 show room and it is further shows OP No.1 endorsed in the Ex.A-"7 that "Get your vehicle serviced at regular intervals, next date for service 10.06.2015 Thank you and Happy Riding". Ex.A-8 "Get your vehicle serviced at regular intervals, next date for service 16.05.2015 Thank you and Happy Riding". Ex.A-5, A-6 Job Cards dated 16.02.2015 and 11.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1 with respect to the complainant's vehicle. On perusal of the Ex.A-5 Job Card dated 16.02.2015, it shows complainant taken his vehicle and his vehicle suffered two problems. The service Advisor's observation shows offing complaint and also another problem as mentioned in the Job Card and also it shows replacement of engine oil charges for Rs.390/- and also it shows the service Advisor name Kousar, Technician name Anwar. They were attended the complainant vehicle on 16.02.2015 at about 10-10 AM, after service the vehicle was delivered on 16.02.2015 at about 4-30 PM. At the time of 1st free service the vehicle was running 748 KMs. Ex.A-5 shows the complainant vehicle suffered from offing problem and also another problem within 16 days. Ex.A-6 Job Card dated 11.03.2015 shows there are 6 problems reported by customer. OP No.1 not attended the complainant vehicle and OP No.1 has cancel the service and mentioned "work not done, vehicle taken back by customer" mentioned in Job Card. Ex.A-6 Job Card clearly shows that the vehicle sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant is defective. Ex.A-11 Job Card dated 08.05.2015 issued by the Akshaya Bajaj, SIRA shows 2nd free service Column Custorm Rep. 11-00, Job Card Start 11-01 Job Card finish 11-09. Customer's Complaint 9 in number i.e., Oil Change Fork Sound, Boor Oil leakage, Gear hard, Chain Sprocket Sound, offing complaint, Engine overheat Engine Rough Sound, Battery Blink Disk Sound. It clearly shows the above said problem are not set right within 8 minutes. The same problems mentioned in the Job Card dated 11.03.2015. Complainant had taken services free of cost from the OPs Authorized Dealers, Service show rooms i.e., Jairam Bajaj, Chitradurga and Akshaya Bajaj, Akshaya Auto Service, SIRA.
19. Complainant Advocate argued that inspite of so many services from the OPs, the OPs are unable to set right the problems of complainant's two wheeler bearing No.KA-16-EC-4568. Complainant demanded the OPs to replace the said vehicle and the OPs refused to replace the said vehicle. Complainant got issued legal notice to OPs, the same has been served on them. OPs have not replied. OPs have not able to set right the problems of the said vehicle belongs to the complainant inspite of so many services from the OPs since 31.01.2015. The said problems are due to deficiency in quality of the parts of the said vehicle and OPs have committed deficiency in their service towards complainant and prayed for allow the complaint with cost.
20. On the other hand, OPs to prove their case, OP No.1 himself examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in which reiterated the contents of version and filed one document the same was got marked as Ex.B-1. On perusal of the Ex.B-1 Job Card dated 23.07.2015 issued by the Jain Bajaj, Davanagere, it shows Engine Sound in second gear front disk check up, mask damage head light focus adjust, mileage chack in 40 to 50 KM speed 56 KM reported, offing complaint after Job card. Further it shows the service made by the Jain Bajaj dated 23.07.2015 paid service total charge Rs.1,030/-. It is further shows dated 30.07.2015 mentioned rechecked the vehicle for offing complaint and engine sound repaired and conformed by customer. Advocate for OPs argued that complaint is pre-mature one, there is no any problem in the said vehicle even as on today the OPs attended the minute problems and cured the defects during the service periods and also thereafter. Further argued that, the complainant has availed the good service from OP No.1 and there is no problems absolutely in the above said motor cycle. The said vehicle is running clearly without any defects. The complaint filed by the complainant is lacks with bonafide and not supported any of the documentary evidence or technical evidence to substantiate his claim and the documents produced by the complainant are created, concocted and imaginary to file this false complaint only and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
21. On perusal of the entire documents filed by the complainant, it shows complainant has taken his vehicle within a short period routine complaints/problems in the vehicle and he trying to get good service from the OPs in different service centers/show rooms like Akshaya Bajaj Auto Service, SIRA and Jain Bajaj Davanagere but, the problems/defects in the complainant's vehicle is not set right. OPs unable to set right the defects in the vehicle. Ex.A-11 Job Card shows so many defects in the vehicle. Fork Sound Boar Oil leakage, chain sprocket sound offing complaint engine over heat engine rough sound, disk break sound. They are all not minor problems and the same routine problems repeated. Ex.B-1 document shows the same problem were reported. It is clearly shows the vehicle itself suffering from manufacturing defects.
22. On perusal of the version and affidavit evidence of the DW-1, OP No.1 deposed in his evidence. The complainant after purchase of the said motor cycle, he was come with some minute problems that was clearly rectified and cured by the mechanics of our show room with service center with free of cost without charging anything from the complainant on the same day itself. Again the complainant has rushed to our showroom for attending the regular free services without any complaint by the complainant in the said motor cycle on the said dates. After attending the same the complainant has stated his satisfaction regarding the service. After ascertaining the nature of problems alleged by the complainant that they are minute and minor problems and the same are arising by wrong usage and mishandling of the motor cycle only against the conditions and norms prevailed by the Bajaj Auto Ltd. Anyhow the same are rectified and cured. OPs themselves admitted that the complainant rushed to OPs show room complaining of problems in the motor cycle, the same were rectified and cured, they are minute and minor problems. Further admits that even the routine problems, which were reported has been already stands fully attended and the grievances if any stands fully redressed by the OPs. OPs themselves admits that there is a problems in the complainant vehicle and the complainant rushed so many decisions for repair of his vehicle, they further stated it was observed during the services that even this minor problems arose only because the complainant has not maintained and used the vehicle properly.
23. On perusal of entire case records, Ex.A-1 legal notice issued by the complainant through his counsel on 23.04.2015 to OPs calling upon them to replace the vehicle Pulsar 150 CC within two months. The said notice served on the OPs. OPs have admitted in their version, affidavit evidence and written arguments, they have not replied the legal notice. OPs have taken contention that, the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature one. As per the OPs contention before completion of two months as the time is mentioned in legal notice for compliance of the same, complaint filed on 03.06.2015. As per the notice time will be expired on 23.06.2015. The complaint filed by the complainant is not pre-mature because complainant called upon the OPs to replace the defective vehicle within two months. Notice issued on 23.04.2015, complaint filed on 03.06.2015. Complainant filed the complaint after lapse of 40 days. If the OPs replied and promise the complainant, they have replace the vehicle or repair or set right the problems in the said vehicle complainant might have been not filed this complaint against them. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not pre-mature one. As per the Ex.A-2 complainant is the customer of the OPs. OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2. Complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 by paying sum of Rs.71,677/-. As per Ex.A-5, 6, 11 and Ex.B-1 Job Cards shows the vehicle sold by the OPs is defective one. From the date of purchase the vehicle was suffering from problems. In spite of so many services made by the OPs, the problems are not set right. OPs documents shows that the vehicle from 1st service to last service the main complaint in the vehicle is offing complaint and Engine sound, Disk break sound, fork sound. So, it clearly shows that the vehicle is defective one. OPs have not produced any documents to show that the complainant vehicle is in good condition and the same is not suffering from any defects. OPs themselves admits the complainant vehicle is in minute problems and minor problems and OPs rectified the problems, the same was cured. OPs admits that the vehicle sold by them to complainant and the warranty given two years or 30000 KMs whichever is earlier. The documents filed by the complainant and OPs it shows that the complainant visits the OPs service center for many occasion for the reason of problems in his vehicle. OPs are unable to set right the problems of the complainant vehicle and they have failed to rectify the problems of the complainant vehicle, thereby OPs have committed deficiency of service. Complainant purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance on 31.01.2015, legal notice issued on 23.04.2015 calling upon the OPs to replace the vehicle or return the amount three months and filed the complaint before this Forum within five months from the date of purchase i.e., 4 months 02 days. Complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs. OPs have not replied the legal notice and they have not come forward to set right the problems in the vehicle, though vehicle is under warranty. The attitude of the OPs shows deficiency of service towards the complainant. OPs have not escaped from their liability. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 held as affirmative and Point No. 2 held as partly affirmative.
24. Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.
It is ordered that, the OPs are directed to repair the complainant's vehicle free of cost within one month and rectify and cure all the problems in the vehicle. If fails to repair and rectify the same for the satisfaction of the complainant, the OPs are directed to replace the Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16-EC-4568 of the same value to the complainant. If fails to replace of the vehicle, OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.71,677/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of complaint i.e., 03.06.2015 till the payment within two months from the date of this order.
It is further ordered that, the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed.
(This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 12/01/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
:ANNEXURES:
Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.
Witness examined on behalf of complainant:
-Nil-
On behalf of OPs one Shri. M.P. Sreenivas S/o Panduranga Setty , Partner, M/s Jairam Bajaj, Chitradurga, examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit
Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
01 | Ex-A-1:- | Legal notice dated 23.04.2015 |
02 | Ex-A-2:- | Invoice-cum-delivery note (Tax Invoice) |
03 | Ex-A-3:- | Form of cover note issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., |
04 | Ex.A-4:- | Cash bill dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 |
05 | Ex.A-5:- | Job Card dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 |
06 | Ex.A-6:- | Job Card dated 11.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1 |
07 | Ex.A-7:- | Invoice dated 10.03.2015 issued by the OP No.1 |
08 | Ex.A-8:- | Invoice dated 16.02.2015 issued by the OP No.1 |
09 | Ex.A-9:- | Insurance Policy |
10 | Ex.A-10:- | Attested true copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the RTO, Chitradurga |
11 | Ex.A-11:- | Attested true copy of the Job Card dated 08.05.2015 issued by the Akshaya Bajaj, Sira |
12 | Ex.A-12:- | Attested true copy of the Tax Invoice (Cash) dated 09.05.2015 |
13 | Ex.A-13 & 14:- | Attested true copy of India Post details. |
Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:
01 | Ex-B-1:- | Copy of Job Card dated 23.07.2015. |
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Rhr***
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.