Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/77/2016

R.Narasimhulu, S/o S.Ramachandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Rep. By its Authorised signatory - Opp.Party(s)

C.Poorna Chand

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                              Filing Date:-20-08-2016                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date:  16-06-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                              Smt. T. Anitha, Member

THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

C.C.No.77/2016

Between

R.Narasimhulu, S/o. S. Ramachandra,

Residing at D.No.11-162/6,

Lakshmi Nagar,

Tiruchanoor, Tirupati.                                                                         … Complainant

 

And

1. MAHINDRA TWO WHEELERS LTD.,

Rep. by Authorized Signatory,

D1 Block, Plot No.18/2 (Part),

M.I.D.C.Chinchwad,

Pune – 411019.

 

2. Sri Durga Automotives,

Rep. by Authorized Signatory,

8-325, B-Almosspet,

Kadapa – 516001,

Andhra Pradesh.

 

3. Madhu Motors,

Rep. by Chairman,

Opp. Chadalavada Petrol Bunk,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupati – 517501.                                                           … Opposite parties

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 31.05.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.C.Poorna Chand, counsel for the complainant and Sri. G.Guruprasad, counsel for the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1 and 3 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to take the old bike and replaces the new bike to the complainant or refund the cost of the bike Rs.48,119.00/- and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased the Mahindra Centuro BS-III, by chasis No: MCDKF1B14E1C29844, black color on 15.04.2014 from the opposite party no.2 which is manufactured by opposite party no.1 for Rs.48,119/- with a warranty period of two years or 30,000Kms whichever is earlier. The complainant further submits that the registration and insurance was processed by the opposite party no.2 and he observed in the RC issued by the RTO, Tirupati that the vehicle bearing No is AP03BK9660, but the color of the bike is mentioned as ‘Red’ color instead of ‘Black’ color. Hence he informed to the opposite party no.2 and they promised that they will take the necessary steps to change the color  in the RC.

            The complainant further submits that the very next day of the purchase he experienced while riding the bike that, when the speedometer reaches 50kms he noticed that the vibration in the front dome of the bike and some weird engine noise. Hence he immediately went to the showroom and complained the same to the service personal but they fixed the rubber in the front dome but the problem of the vibration and engine noise was not rectified. Whenever the complainant went to the showroom for repairing his bike the service manager and the mechanic adjusted the engine sound and vibrations but it was not worked more than two days again the problem was repeated and also the complainant requested their service persons for the trial run of the bike to Tirumala but they refused to do so.

         The complainant further submits that after six months of the purchase the bike gave starting problem again he approached the service centre but they failed to rectify the same. The complainant further submits that since the day one of the purchase in the said bike he noticed several problems and he visited service centre several times and changed the several spare parts but, the problem was not rectified and the opposite parties failed to repair the same even after collecting the amount for changing the spare parts. Hence the complainant requested the opposite parties several times to rectify the defect and deliver the same to him but they have not taken any steps to rectify the same. Hence finally he sent registered legal notice on 09.04.2016 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties gave reply notice simply by denying the contentions in the notice.

       3. After receipt of the notices issued by this Forum, the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte the opposite party no.2 appeared before this Forum and filed the written version. The opposite party no.2 filed the written version by admitting the purchase of the bike on 15.04.2014 from Durga Automotives and also admitted the warranty period. The opposite party stated that as per the manual the services schedule offers six free service later on paid services so as to keep the vehicle in perfect running condition and also it is mentioned specifically that the speed limit should not exceed 50kms per hour. The opposite party further stated that the complainant vaguely stated that there is a vibration in front dome of the bike and causing some sounds in the engine but they have not stated anywhere in the complaint that whom it was reported when there are three opposite parties.

       The opposite party no.2 stated that the dealership of Durga Automotive was closed during the month of August, 2015 and not carrying any dealership at Tirupati and the dealership is continued by opposite party no.3 M/s. Madhu Motors in the same showroom with new management and also stated that they made transactions at Tirupati up to August 2015. During that period the bike in question on complaint dt: 05.01.2015 as per job sheet the horn was replaced and on 19.05.2015 the digital BCCBT was replaced and the complainant taken delivery of the bike with full satisfaction. Hence the allegation mentioned by the complainant in Para 8 is not related to them and the rest of the allegations are unconcern to them. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        4.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Exs: A1 to A18 were marked one Thota Siva Ramakrishna Moorthy, S/o. Late.T.Rattaiah filed his evidence on affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Exs: B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of opposite party no.2. Both the complainant and opposite party no.2 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         5.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?            

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so?         

             (iii)  To what Relief?

           6. Point No:-(i). The opposite party no.2 admitted the sale of the motor bike to the complainant under Ex:A8 and stated that the complainant took the delivery of the bike. And also the opposite party no.2 further stated that the complainant approached them on 05.01.2015 under Ex:B1 accordingly they rendered service and horn was replaced and also and the complainant deliver the bike after satisfying the test ride and again on 19.05.2015 the complainant approached them and they replaced digital BCCBT to the said bike. And also further stated that in the month of August, 2015 the dealership was changed in the name of Madhu Motors hence the transactions which was made after 26.08.2015 was not  related to them as the management was already changed in the name of Madhu Motors. Hence in their period of management of dealership they have done the services without any fault and complaints.

         The main case of the complainant is from the date of the purchase he noticed vibrations in the front dome and also some weird noise in the engine and also stated that he noticed in the RC that the color is mentioned as red instead of black. Instead of several requests made by the complainant the opposite party failed to rectify the same but as per Ex: B1 job card dt: 05.01.2015 clearly shows that by the date of 05.01.2015 the vehicle covered 7,127kms and also in the customer observation column nowhere it was mentioned that there is vibration in the front dome and also under Ex: B2 shows that the complainant approached opposite party no.2 for the service of the bike on 19.05.2015 by the date the vehicle covered 10,429Kms. Hence by Ex:B1 and B2 shows that the bike which was purchased by the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect and the opposite parties rendered the service with the satisfaction of the complainant. But as per Ex: A12, A13 and A14 clearly shows that the complainant approached opposite party no.3 for the repair of the vehicle  and also stated that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect and deliver  the same to the complainant still the bike is in the custody of the opposite party no.3.

          If there are any bonafides on the part of the opposite party no.3 they might have appear before this Forum and challenge the contentions of the complainant hence as the opposite party no.3 remained exparte, the contentions of the complainant that the opposite party no.3 failed to render the service properly are to be considered. Hence on the above circumstances we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.3 towards the complainant. Hence this point is answered accordingly. 

         7. Point(ii):-  As per contention of the complainant that from the day one of the purchase  the bike is giving trouble i.e. vibration in the dome and there is noise in the engine but, as per Ex: B5 and B6 job cards dt:  05.01.2015 and 19.05.2015 shows that the complainant drove the vehicle 10,429Kms hence  if at all there is any manufacturing defect it is not possible for the complainant to drove the vehicle for 10,429Kms. Hence on those circumstances we cannot hold any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1 who is the manufacturer.

         As per Ex: A4 clearly shows that the color of the bike is shown as ‘Red’ instead of ‘Black’ as already the dealership was changed in the name of opposite party no.3 i.e. Madhu Motors and also the Madhu Motors failed to appear before this Forum and mentioned the reasons why they have not delivered the vehicle to the complainant after effecting repairs.  Hence on the above mentioned reasons we direct the opposite party no.3 who is the successor of opposite party no.2 because the dealership was transferred in the name of opposite party no.3 to effect the repairs of the bike free of cost and deliver the same to the complainant in road worthy condition within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and file the compliance report before this Forum and also effect the necessary changes in the color of bike in RC with its own expenses and deliver the same to the complainant. Because of the inaction of the opposite party no.3 the complainant faced much inconvenience for his day to day work without the bike. Hence on those circumstances the complainant is entitled of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.

         8.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.3  the complaint is allowed accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.3 who succeeded opposite party No.2 to effect the repairs of the bike at free of cost and deliver the same to the complainant in road worthy condition within one week and file compliance report before this Forum. The opposite party No.3 further directed to effect the necessary changes i.e. from color ‘Red’ to ‘Black’ in RC of the bike with its own expenses and deliver the same to the complainant. The opposite party No.3 further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party no.3 further directed to comply with the above said order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 16^th day of June, 2017.

           Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                             

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

C.C.No.77/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: R. Narasimhulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Thota Sivaramakrishna Murthy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Delivery Certificate issued by Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 14.04.2014.
	Original copy of Service Book issued by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 14.04.2014.
	Notarized attested copy of cash invoice No.23 issued by opposite party No.2. Dt: 15.04.2014.
	True copy of  Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by RTO and collect from the dealer that is opposite party No.2 with duly signed with seal by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 17.04.2014.
	True copy of Tax Receipt issued by RTO and collect from the dealer that is opposite party No.2 with duly signed with seal by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 15.04.2014.
	Photo copy of Shiram General Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule, Motorized-Two Wheelers Package Policy-Zone-B, Policy No.10007/31/15/000284. Dt: 15.04.2014.
	Original R.C. filed by Complainant.
	Cash Bill Sl.No.541 issued by opposite party No. 2. Dt: 08.04.2015.
	Number in 7 photos of the complaint bike and CD and Bill in Original. Dt: 15.07.2016.
	Photo copy of Shiram General Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule, Policy No.10008/31/17/001450.Period of Insurance from 23.04.2016 to Midnight of 22.04.2017. Dt: 23.04.2016.
	Office copy of Legal notices and Postal Receipt along with three (03) acknowledgements (2) from opposite parties. Dt: 09.04.2016.
	Original Cash Bill Sl.No.1169 issued by opposite party No.3. Dt: 12.02.2016.
	Job Card Acknowledgement Sl.No.1331 in Original issued by opposite party No.3.  Dt: 29.01.2016.
	Original cash Bill Sl.No.1222 issued by opposite party No.3. Dt:17.06.2016.
	Reply notice along with postal cover from opposite party No.2 from Kadapa in Original. Dt: 12.04.2016.
	Reply Notice along with Postal cover from Opposite party No.1 from Bangalore in Original. Dt: 30.01.2016.
	Reply Notice along with Postal cover from Opposite party No.1 from Tirupati in Original. Dt: 30.01.2016.
	Reply notice along with Postal cover from opposite party No.1 from Tirupati in Original. Dt: 15.04.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Sri Durga Automotives Job card Sheet and Customer Satisfaction Letter in Original. Job Card No.2977. Dt: 05.01.2015.
	Sri Durga Automotives Job card Sheet and Customer Satisfaction Letter in Original. Job Card No.399. Dt: 19.05.2015.
	Letter issued by Sri Durga Automotives in Original. Dt: 12.04.2016.
	Photo copy of Customer Vehicle History Details.
	Photo copy of Sri Durga Automotives Job card Sheet and Customer Satisfaction Letter. Job Card No.2977. Dt: 05.01.2015.
	Photo copy of Sri Durga Automotives Job card Sheet and Customer Satisfaction Letter. Job Card No.399. Dt: 19.05.2015.
	Photo copy of Job card given by Mahindra Two Wheelers, MM Madhu Motors. Job Card No.229. Dt: 30.09.2015.
	Photo copy of Customer Satisfaction Letter of Mahindra Two Wheelers. Dt: 17.10.2015.
	Photo copy of Job card given by Mahindra Two Wheelers , MM Madhu Motors. Job Card No.525. Dt: 27.12.2015
	Photo copy of Customer Satisfaction Letter of Mahindra Two Wheelers. Dt: 27.12.2015.
	Photo copy of Vehicle repairs attended details(REGN No.AP03-BK-9660).

 

                                      

                                                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                                                                

                                                                                                            President

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                                // BY ORDER //

 

                                                                                          Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite parties.