Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1059/2012

Amar Parkash S/o Banarsi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malik Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Chaudhary

25 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1059 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 01.10.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 25.05.2017

Amar Prakash aged about 50 years son of Sh. Banarsi Dass, resident of C-7/182, Gandhi Dham, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. Malik Automobiles, Near Shiv Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.
2. (i)Bajaj Auto Ltd. Manufacturing Unit M-33, Old DLF, Sector-14, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana), through its Manager/Authorized person.

2. Krishna Auto Sales, 306/1, Lajpat Nagar, Near Railway Road, Gurgaon-122001, through its Proprietor.
3. V.S.Automobiles, 1/3, Khandsa Road, Opp. Sector-10A, Gurgaon (HR), through its authorized person.                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                ...Respondents.   

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:Sh. Pawan Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. D.C.Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2(ii),

              Respondents No.2 (i) and 2(iii) already ex-parte.      

 

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Amar Prakash has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended upto date.       

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle make Bajaj Discover M 100 Es bearing engine No. JBUBUF56384 and chassis No. MD2DSPAZZUPF76935 from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) on 28.10.2011 wrongly typed as dated 04.11.2011 vide bill No. 983 for a sum of Rs. 45,490/- who is authorized dealer of Bajaj Motorcycle i.e. OP No.2. At the time of purchasing the said motorcycle, the OP No.1 had given warranty of one year in all respect. Since very beginning of the purchase of motorcycle, the complainant was facing problem in gear shifting and also the mileage of the bike is extremely low about 50-54 KMs. Due to which, the complainant visited so many times to the OP No.1 who sent the motorcycle in question to the workshop of Op No.2 i.e. Bajaj Motorcycle and many parts were replaced and charged amount thereof without any right, title or authority, violating the terms and condition No.4 of the job sheet No.1100. The defects of the motorcycle in question were also disclosed to the service centre as the motorcycle in question started creating problem in starting as it was not starting with self-start mode or from the kick start mode. It has been further mentioned that motorcycle in question is standing in Delhi Harinagar since July, 2012 as unused. Since, the motorcycle in question was still within warranty period and the defects were manufacturing defects thus the motorcycle in question is required to be replaced with new one but the official of the OPs refused to do the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their parts. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs either to replace the motorcycle in question or return the cost of motorcycle i.e. Rs. 45,490/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2(ii) appeared but failed to file written statement, hence their defence was struck off vide order dated 10.06.2013 whereas OPs No.2 (i) & (iii) failed to appear despite service through registered post dated 24.01.2013, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2013.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of e-mail Annexure C-1 to C-, photo copy of bill/invoice bearing No. 983 dated 28.10.2011 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of bill dated 04.11.2011 issued by Op No.2 (iii) as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of bill dated 01.02.2012 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of bill dated 12.01.2012 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of miscellaneous receipt as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of bill dated 03.07.2012 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of unreadable job card as Annexure C-12, Photo copy of satisfaction voucher as Annexure C-13, Photo copy of letter as Annexure C-14, Photo copy of job sheet as Annexure C-15, Photo copy of miscellaneous service as Annexure C-16 and C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     The only version of the complainant is that since purchase of the motorcycle in question on 28.10.2011, the motorcycle in question is giving problems particularly in the gear box and self-start for which he visited so many times to the workshop of OP No.2(ii) and (Iii) at Gurgaon i.e. Krishna Auto sales, Gurgaon and V.S. Automobiles, Gurgaon and some parts were changed by the official of OP No.2(ii) and 2(iii) subject to charges which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the motorcycle in question was under warranty but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to prove that the motorcycle in question was having any manufacturing defect. Neither any expert report issued by the qualified person or any authorized institution for that purpose has been placed on file nor any application for appointment of local commissioner at initial stage was filed by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that a vague application for appointment of local commissioner was filed on behalf of complainant on dated 03.04.2014 which was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 23.12.2015. Although the complainant has placed on file some bills which are of the amount of Rs. 478/- dated 04.11.2011, Rs. 379 dated 12.01.2012 and Rs.100/- dated 05.07.2012 to prove his case but all these bills are of petty amount, it cannot be presumed from these bills that motorcycle in question was having any manufacturing defect. These bills Annexure C-5 to C-9 are generally for wear and tear of the motorcycle in question. So, in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Forum is unable to hold that complainant is entitled to get any relief. On the other angle also, from the perusal of satisfaction certificate issued by the complainant himself Annexure C-13, C-14and C-16 it is duly evident that as and when the complainant approached the service centre of OPs, his complaint was duly attended to his satisfaction.

7.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 25.05.2017.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

           

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                   (S.C.SHARMA)

                         MEMBER                                                    MEMBER