Haryana

Panchkula

CC/240/2014

CHANDER PARKASH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA TWO WHEELERS.LTD. & ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

BIMAL MAINI.

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                 

Consumer Complaint No	:	240 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	01.04.2015

                                                                                                                 

Mr.Chander Parkash S/o Lt.Sh.Dinanath, R/o H.No.1073, B-1, Pinjore.

 

                                                                                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director, D-1 Block, Plot No.18/2 (Part) M.I.D.C., Chinchwad, Pune-4110419.
2. Prem Auto Care through its Manager, Authorize dealer of Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., SCO 9, Opposite White House, NH-22, Pinore, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor , Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Bimal Maini, Adv., for the complainant. 

                                    Op No.1 already ex-parte.

                                    Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Adv., for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Mahindra Duro DZ 125 CC Model 2013 bearing registration No.HR49-D-2771 for Rs.46,500/- (Annexure C-1) on 24.11.2013 with a warranty of two years or 20000 kms from the date of delivery from the OP No.2. On 29.11.2013, the scooter was not working properly. The complainant immediately contacted the OP No.2 and told him that the scooter was not working properly like centre stand of the scooter came down. The mechanic of Op No.2 told the complainant that the scooter was having manufacturing defect. The Op No.2 kept the scooter for two weeks and opened it entire & changed the chassis assy. After two weeks, the Op No.2 returned the scooter to the complainant but after passing few days, the scooter started giving problem i.e. getting overheated, burning smell was coming, the handle was vibrating, scooter stopped automatically without even applying brakes and a lot of noise came from the front wheel cover etc. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 who repaired the scooter and changed the damaged value of the scooter but the scooter was still getting overheated. The complainant approached the Op No.2 many times but to no avail. The scooter of the complainant was giving average of 30-35 kmpl but the company assured at the time of sale that it would give average of 55 kmpl. Due to non-functioning of scooter, the complainant did not do his job. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.09.2014 but to no avail. This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was sent to the Op No.1 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of Op No.1. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.12.2014.
3. Upon notice, the Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 manufactured the vehicles in bulk and sold the same to its various dealers and the dealers resold the vehicles to its ultimate customers. It is submitted that the OP No.1 has contract of sale with its dealers but there was no privity of contract between the company and the customers who purchased the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was not suffering from any defect. It is submitted that the vehicle was sold in November, 2013 but the problem in center stand has been reported on 23.04.2014 and the problem in the stand was not a technical or manufacturing problem. It is submitted that the problem in stand came due to mishandle & negligently handle by the complainant and in order to rectify the same, the Op No.2 changed the chassis free of cost under warranty. It is submitted that the complainant was also told to use the same carefully and not to use the same negligently & not mishandle the same. It is submitted that after changing the chassis, the problem of center stand has never been reported again. It is submitted that the complainant has never report the problem of burning smell, stop automatically, lot of noise, problem of scooter overheating on 24.06.2014 to Op No.2 but he only reported the problem of handle vibrating and the same was checked and rectified. It is submitted that the problems might occur as it required oil change but the complainant has not got it done. It is submitted that the complainant never raised the issue of milage. It is submitted that after receipt of legal notice, the Op No.2 contacted the complainant but he did not tell the problem nor met the company official. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. In order to prove their case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire material on record, written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Op No.1 and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Mahindra Duro DZ 125 CC Model 2013 bearing registration No.HR49-D-2771 for Rs.46,500/- (Annexure C-1) on 24.11.2013 from Op No.2, with a warranty of 24 months or running of 20000 kms whichever is earlier from the date of sale. The complainant alleged that on 29.11.2013, the scooter was not working properly. The complainant contacted the OP No.2 and told him that the centre stand of the scooter came down itself. After checking, the mechanic of Op No.2 told the complainant that the scooter was having manufacturing defect and requested the complainant to keep the scooter for two weeks. But no such documents were placed on file. However, the OP No.1 in their reply (para No.3) stated that the problem in the stand has been reported on 23.04.2013 and the same was rectified and changed the chassis free of costs under warranty. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that after a few days, the scooter again started giving problem i.e. getting overheated, burning smell was coming, the handle was vibrating, scooter stopped automatically without even applying brakes and a lot of noise came from the front wheel cover etc. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 who repaired the scooter and changed the damaged valve of the scooter but the complainant has failed to place on record any job sheet. After changing the chassis, the problem of center stand has never been reported by the complainant and not the problem of burning smell, stop automatically, lot of noise, problem of scooter overheating on 24.06.2014 but he only reported the problem of handle vibrating which was checked and rectified. The learned counsel for the Op contended that the problem may occur as the scooter was required oil changed. From the above, it is cleared that the centre stand of the scooter was repaired but thereafter the complainant has never reported any complaint to the Ops. The complainant, in his complaint, mentioned that some damaged parts were changed but he has also failed to place on record any job sheet regarding service or replacement of damaged parts. Mere verbal assertions of the complainant without any documentary evidence or expert opinion to the effect, cannot be believed. Hence, no deficiency in service is attributable towards the OPs.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any cogent & positive evidence and negligence on the part of the Ops. Resultantly, the compliant is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

Announced

01.04.2015                        ANITA KAPOOR                                 DHARAM PAL

                                            MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                     

                                                       

                                                            DHARAM PAL                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT