Delhi

East Delhi

CC/78/2015

SOMPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGIN DTR. MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2018

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.         78 /2015

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               04/02/2015

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               05/01/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       07/01/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Som Pal, adult   

s/o Sh Asha Ram    

R/o- G- 260, Gali no. 13

Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi 110094……….. …………………………….….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

1-The Manager,

Himgiri Hero Showroom

B- 28, East Jyoti Nagar

Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032

 

2- The Manager,

Himgiri Hero Service Centre

A-19, New Jhilmil Industrial area, Delhi 110032

 

3- The Manager, Corp. office

Hero Motocorps Ltd.

34, Community Centre, Vasant Lok,

Vasant Vihar, New Delhi  110057 ………………………..….…………..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 purchased Hero Passion Pro10 drum selfcast motor cycle from OP1/ Himgiri Hero

Showroom on 06/04/2014 for a sum of Rs 55400/- vide registration no. DL14SD9619 having chasis no. MBLHA10A6GC07681 and Engine no. HA10ENEGC09965 (Anne. I &II) having one year’s warranty (Anne. IV).

It had been alleged that after purchase of this motor cycle, developed number of defects like low performance and excess vibrations, so he approached OP2 for rectifying the problems as per job sheet (Anne. III), but could not get the satisfactory repairs. It was wrongly assured by the service engineer that defects had been rectified, but could not do so. Again complainant took his motor cycle to OP2 for service for the same problems, but again OP2 could not rectify the problems (Anne. V). Thereafter complainant approached OP3 and also wrote letter on 30/11/2014 for redressal of his grievances as marked (Anne. VI).

Complainant stated that he being the genuine customer and a consumer of OPs as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and OPs were deficient in their services under Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, he claimed relief through this complaint for directing OPs to apologize for causing inconvenience to the complainant and replacing his motor cycle or refund the cost of the bike a sum of Rs 55,400/- with compensation for harassment Rs 60,000/- and litigation charges Rs 1000/-.  

 

Notices were served. OP submitted written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. It was submitted that the said vehicle was purchased from OP1 and had under taken services free of cost under standard warranty period and every time when complainant had visited, defects were rectified up to three free services. All the standard warranty cards pertaining terms and conditions (OPW1/1) where the said vehicle had warranty up to five years or 5000 KM running whichever was earlier under condition (a) with battery warranty card OPW1/2 Emission warranty (OPW1/2B) were supplied to the complainant. It was also submitted that the complainant had availed three free services under “Vehicle History Card” (OPW1/3) where it was mentioned that the said two wheeler had run satisfactorily p to 11/09/2014 running 8045 KM and the said vehicle had no manufacturing defect ever reported or found whereas few accessories were fitted on the request of complainant which were not the parts of engine or vehicle body. Still complainant was not satisfied with the three services taken free of cost as per job sheets, a mail was sent to him on dated 12/12/2014 to get the defects if any to be removed from the designated service engineer, but complainant did not come for any complaint from his bike.  

It was submitted by OP that manufacturer had contractual obligation under terms of warranty for getting defects if any removed or replace the parts if found defective, but driving the vehicle depend upon improper handling and driving. It was well settled law in “Maruti Udhyog Ltd. vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & others” in (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) that “an order for any relief outside the terms and conditions of manufacturer’s warranty cannot be sustained.”

OP had also took reference from Scooters India Ltd vs Madhabanda Mohanty & others in RP 240/2002 NCDRC, it was held that the burden to prove defect would be on consumer and has to be shown that defect was due to manufacturing process through expert examination. Notice to the OPs should have to be given with suitable opportunity to remove the defect by OP.

The same view was taken in Swaraj Mazda Ltd vs P K Chakkappore & others in (2005) CPJ 72 (NC).  

Hence, there was neither manufacturing defect in the said vehicle nor there was any deficiency in the services provided under warranty tenure, so this complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder denying all the replies submitted by the OP and stated all the contents of his complaints were true and correct. He also submitted his evidences on affidavit and he affirmed on oath that all the defects stated in his complaint were correct and true and were due to manufacturing defect in his motor cycle and all the evidences were on record.     

 

OP filed their evidence on affidavit through Sh. Lokesh Batra, authorised representative of OP/Himgiri Motocorps and 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 the said bike had run well without any defect up to 8045 KM (OPW1/3) and   thereafter complainant had never come for any defect with their authorized service station as OP3. It was also stated by OP that complainant had not submitted any proof of manufacturing defect by any independent mechanical expert to show manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle. All allegations alleged by the complainant were denied in written statement. So this complaint had no merit and may be dismissed. 

 

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

We have also gone through citations 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)CPJ130(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 in above citations that manufacturer is liable to refund or replace the goods having established manufacturing defect only. So, after going all the facts of this case, we come to the conclusion that complainant has not established any manufacturing defect in his bike by any evidence or expert examination report; hence 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 Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari,  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur,  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                   Shri  Sukhdev Singh,  President