Delhi

East Delhi

CC/699/2015

SUBHASH CHANDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA TWO - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.        699/2015

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               10/09/2015

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               17/05/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       18/05/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Subhash Chandra Sharma, adult   

s/o Sh S P Sharma  

R/o 37/41, Gali no. 2

Janta Colony, Modi Nagar, UP 201204 …………………………….….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

1-Mahendra Two wheeler Ltd. - Company

D-1, Plot no. 18/2, Part II,

MIDC, Chichwad, Pune, 411019

 

2-Khandelwal Automobiles – Seller

Mahendra Two wheelers Ltd.

Plot no. 3, South Ganesh Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

3-Khandelwal Automobiles – Workshop

Plot no. 150, Patpargunj Industrial Area

Delhi 110092 ………………………………………………………..….…………..Opponents

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant aged 58 years an employee at MTNL, purchased Mahendra motor cycle vide registration no. DL7SDU3125 for a sum of Rs 52,000/-from OP2/ Mahendra Automobiles Ltd having two years warranty for his own use as per Ex CW1/1, 2 and 3. It had been alleged that after purchase of this motor cycle, he developed blood sugar and IBS. Due to number of defects, OP3 could not rectify the problems as marked Ex CW1/5, 6 and 7, so was adviced to take his motor cycle to another OP’s authorized workshop at Rithani, Delhi Meerut road for repair. He got repaired his motor cycle from them. He had alleged that due to the rude behavior of OP2&3 he got two diseases for which he was taking treatment from Meerut and had occurred medical treatment expenditure for about Rs 103462/- and it had been stated that due to these disease, his life was endogenous in future and OPs would be responsible, as marked Ex CW1/8A to F.

Complainant had stated that there were more than 14 defects for which number of times he took his motor cycle to OP3, but could not get satisfactory results due to the irresponsible behavior of OP3. Complainant had lodged his complaint to the head office of OP1, 2 and 3 through speed post and even sent a legal notice for refund of amount paid to OP2.

When no satisfactory reply was received by him so he filed this complaint claiming Rs 52,500/- as the cost of his motor cycle besides expenditures occurred on services got done and on his medical treatment. Thus he claimed a sum of Rs 1,03462/-due to harassment and unfair trade practice adopted by OP2 and OP3.

Notices were served. OP submitted joint written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. It was submitted that the said vehicle was purchased from OP2 and had under taken services under standard warranty period and every time when complainant had visited, defects were rectified up to three free service where as he did not come for free service as per 4rth free coupon as blank submitted by him.

It was totally denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle. It had been stated that alleged defects does not pertain to manufacturing still all defects were rectified free of cost up to 28/02/2015 under the tenure of warranty period. Hence, this complaint had no merit and be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the defects stated in his complaint were correct and true and was due to manufacturing defect in his motor cycle.   

OP1 filed their evidence on affidavit through Sh. Vijendra Singh, Manager Legal. He stated on oath that the said motor cycle had no manufacturing defect and all the alleged problems were rectified during the warranty tenure up to three free services and there after complainant had never came for any defect in his motor cycle to their authorized service station as OP3.

To provide hassle free services to their customers, a copy of dealership agreement was submitted on record by which their authorized service centers were providing services.  It was also stated by OP1 that complainant had not submitted any proof of manufacturing defect by any independent mechanical expert to show manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle.  Hence, it was prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

OP2 and 3 submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh. Suresh Khandelwal who affirmed on oath that he was a dealer of the said motor cycle which was purchased from him and was serviced time to time as per the warranty conditions up to three free services Till the last free service availed by complainant, the said motor cycle had no defect. All the defects alleged by the complainant had been shown in their job card, were removed accordingly. It was also stated that complainant had not put any substantial evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in motor cycle. It was also stated that services got done outside had no record and evidence. All the allegations alleged by the complainant were denied in their written statement were correct. So this complaint had no merit and may be dismissed.

  

Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.

We have scrutinized all the facts and evidences on record and it was noted that –

1. Whether complainant suffered from alleged IBS and DM due to defective services of OP3?
2. Whether the said motor cycle had any manufacturing defect with proof?

We have taken these two issues together and after going through job sheets on record, it is clear that all the alleged defects were rectified by the OP3 and complainant had utilized three FREE services of OP2, but did not go for 4rth free service. Also, no proof of manufacturing defect was available on record.

It was also observed that complainant was an employee of MTNL at Delhi and was plying his motor cycle in Meerut most of the time. Also he was under treatment for his alleged ailments at Meerut. By going through the annexure of medical prescription, it is not clear that the treating doctor had investigated for provisional diagnosis which he made. There were no relevant pathological test reports on record which can be accepted that diseases were of recent tenure or had long duration. Also, there is no medical literature submitted by complainant to sustain his allegations. Complainant had not submitted any leave record from his department to show that he remained irregular or absent from his work due to these alleged ailments. Thus it cannot be said that the complainant here suffered IBS and DM due to his motor cycle.

We have also gone through three citations submitted by OP referring to manufacturing defects as—

1-CN Ananthram vs Fiat India Ltd, AIR 2011SC523 decided on 24.11/2010,

2-Sushila Automobiles Pvt Ltd vs Dr Birendra Narain Prasad, III (2010) CPJ 130(NC) decided on 07/05/2010 and

3-Maruti Udhyog Ltd. vs Susheel Kumar & others, CA 3734/2000 decided on 29/03/2006. AIR2006SC1586.

It was laid down very clearly that manufacturer is liable to refund or replace the goods having been established manufacturing defect only.  

Thus, after going all the facts and evidences of this case, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.    

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the act and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                  Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President