C.F. CASE No.          : CC/08/46                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Sankar Das

State General Hospital,

Quarter No. N/C – II,

Santipur, Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1. Manager, 

Mother Land Auto Mobile,

Matiganj More, N.H. 34 (C.R. Das Rd.)

Santipur, Nadia.

 

             : 2. Area Manager (Service),

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

232/B, A.J.C. Bose Rd, Kol – 69.  

 

             : 3.  Manager,

Bajaj Auto Ltd,

Service Dept.,

Akurdi, Pune – 411 035.  

 

PRESENT              :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU                     PRESIDENT

             :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY              MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    13th April, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

The complainant, Sankar Das has filed this case against the opposite 

2

parties 1) Manager, Mother Land Auto Mobile, Matiganj More, Santipur, 2) Area Manager (Service), Bajaj Auto Ltd., 232/B Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata 69, and 3) Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Service Department, Akurdi alleging that  he purchased “Bajaj Platina” Motor Cycle on 02.02.07 from Motherland Auto Mobile having Engine No. DUMBND–28042, Chasis No. MD2DDDZZZNWD/21627.  At first, the running of the said Motor Cycle was smooth and it travels 80 to 85 kilometers per litre of oil.  About after 7 months of purchase, some problems were noticed by him viz., Looking Glass of Mobile Chamber became like the cream of milk.   On pointing out the problem, the OP No. 1 changed mobile, washed mobile chamber with kerosene oil.  After a few days the same problems was cropped up again.  On pointing out the same problem they again checked up the same.  The pollution rate was increased thereafter.  As per suggestion of Mr. Subrata Roy, an Officer of Bajaj Co. the complainant took the said Motor Cycle to S.S. Bajaj Service Centre on 28.08.08 for examination.  The said Motor Cycle began to run 72 kilometer per liter in stead of 80 to 85 kilometers.  As the complainant failed to get required service from the OPs as regard his Motor Cycle, by filing the instant case he has prayed for replacement of the said Motor Cycle by new one, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for his harassment and agony and other relief. 

The OP No. 1, Pradip Kumar Sanyal, Manager, Motherland Auto Mobile, Matiganj More by filing a written version has contested this case denying all the material averments of the complaint admitting the purchase of Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle on 02.02.07.   He further submits that there was no mechanical defect as alleged by the complainant.  In spite of that he is ready to give service to the complainant.   He has also denied the washing by kerosene oil.   There is no provision  in the warranty to replace of the Motor Cycle by a new one.   If any defect is detected then he is ready to change the spare part or parts. 

The OP No. 2 & 3 have also contested the case by filing a written version 

3

whereon they have contended that the free warranty services for the said vehicle is for 2 years which will be ended on 01.02.09 thus the case is premature one.   The minor routine problems which were reported by the complainant were duly attended and removed.  The complainant has not filed any expert report as to manufacturing defect of the said Motor Cycle and thus, the case is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above of the facts the following points are taken for proper adjudication:

Point No.1   Whether the said Motor Cycle has / had any manufacturing defect?

Point No.2   Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions. 

It is the complainant's case that the Motor Cycle purchased by him began to show some problems about 7 months after the purchase.   The looking glass of mobile chamber began to cover with alike cream of milk.   The pollution rate began to increase.  The mileage per liter began to minimize 72 to 73 kilometers per liter from 80 to 85 kilometers per liter.  After proper servicing the above cited defects could not be removed.   Hence, he has prayed for replacing the Motor Cycle by a new one.    

It is settled principle that the replacement of any vehicle by a new one cannot be ordered without manufacturing defect.   It is the cardinal duty of the complainant to prove that the said Motor Cycle has / had the manufacturing defect.  Without proving the same the replacement of the Motor Cycle by a new one can not be entertained.   

4

The complainant has not examined any expert in  support of his submission as to manufacturing defect of the said Motor Cycle or has not filed any expert report to substantiate his case.  To come into proper finding the Forum placed the said Motor Cycle before an expert who after examining the said Motor Cycle has furnished a report which in our considered view is the deciding factor of this case.   

The complainant himself and the Ld. Lawyers of the opposite parties had candidly submitted that they would not adduce any evidence and they are ready to argue the case basing upon the documents filed by both parties.  

The expert (MVI TECH), Biplob Pradhan who was authorized by R.T.O. Nadia to examine the said Motor Cycle as per our requisition examined the vehicle No. WB/52/E-9445 in connection with case No. 46/2008 vide Engine No. DUMBND28042, Chasis No. MD2DDDZZZNWD21627 and reported, “The aforesaid vehicle was started, tested the engine compression pressure, tested idling of carburettor, spark plug for engine performance thoroughly on presence of Shri Shankar Das.  

The performance of Engine in all respect within the service limit and found satisfactory.   The colour of the engine oil observed over the inspection glass found also normal in visual eye.   

From technical point of view in my opinion the vehicle examined above found mechanically fit for roadworthy at the time of inspection.”

The above expert report clearly divulges that there was no mechanical defect in the said Motor Cycle  and the Motor Cycle in all respect remains OK.    

In view of the above inspection report and observation we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate his case.  

Thus, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

5

Ordered,

That the instant case is dismissed on contest without any cost.

 

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 2 months 13 days, i.e., within the statutory period. 

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

 

  PRESIDENT                   MEMBER                                PRESIDENT                   C.D.R.F., Nadia                           C.D.R.F., Nadia                        C.D.R.F., Nadia