DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.50 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Smt. Narmada Chowdhury, aged 33 years ,
Wife of Sri Ashutosh Sahu,
At- Hatisala Sahi, G. Udayagiri
PO/PS: G. Udayagiri, Dist: Kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Managing Director,
Hero Motocorp Ltd., 34 Community centre,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,New Delhi- 110057, India .
2. Area Manager, Hero Motocorp Ltd.,
Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor Martin Burn,
Business Park, BP 3, Salt Lake,
Sector –V, Kolkata- 7000. India.
3.Area Manager,
Hero Motocrop Ltd.
Odysa Business Centre,
Plot No. 30,301982,172.1031,4th Floor,
Cuttack- Bhubaneswar High Way road,
Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar- 751010.
4.Mahavir Motors,
At/PO/PS: G. Udayagiri, Dist: kandhamal- 762100.
5. Narayani Hero- Authorised Dealer,
Hero Motcorp Ltd.,Plot No. 2346/2607,
-2-
At: Kaladi, PO: Titrapanga,
PS: Khajuripada Dist: Kandhamal PIN: 762012. …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: Sri Soumyajyoti Biswal, Advocate and his associates.
Date of Order: 28-04-2018
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that is that she had purchased a Hero Maestro Edge two Wheeler from Mahavir Motors of G. Udayagiri,the O.P No.4 on 24-11-2015 bearing Registration No. OD-12-A-0352 but the said vehicle created problems day by day as the same suddenly stopped and did not start again. He intimated the service center of G. Udayagiri and one part of the engine was replaced by him .Again from that day one by one defect was found in the said vehicle for which she was not attending her school in time, as a result of which an enquiry is pending against her by her Department .On 22-10-2017 she handed over the defective vehicle to the Mohavir motors , G. Udayagiri to replace but her demand is not yet fulfilled in spite of oral and written request . The period of warranty of the vehicle is five years. Due to negligence of the O.ps, she is suffering both mentally and financially which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Hence, this complaint is filed by her for a direction to the O.ps to withdraw her vehicle and to supply new vehicle in alternative the cost of the vehicle be refunded with 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase i.e on 24-11-2015 and to grant compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation .
The case of the O.P No. 1,2 &3 as per their joint version is that the vehicle was purchased from O.P No.4 on 07-11-2015. The vehicle was serviced at Lakshmi Motors, Berhampur, the parent dealer of O.P No.4 on 06-01-2016 .Crank shaft was replaced under warranty. The vehicle had run 1123 Km at that time. On 22-10-2017, a letter was received by O.P No.1 that the vehicle faced starting problem etc. the vehicle was received by O.P No.4 and sent to O.P No.5 the present parent dealer of O.P No.4 . The parts of the vehicle were replaced under warranty as per complain to eliminate the causes of starting problems. The vehicle had run 1254 Km at that time. In last 22 months the vehicle had run only 130 Km which is primary cause for the defects since the vehicle was not running adequately and on time servicing was not done. It was noticed that one of the front indicator bulbs was not working and the battery needed maintenance. These were replaced as a good will gesture and O.P No.5 also gave the Complainant a full tank of petrol. The details would be available in the owners manual but the manual book has been replaced by the Complainant for which he had filed an F.I R regarding loss of the book. In the mean time the O.P No.5 has sent 3 communications through letter and email to the Complainant asking them to receive the vehicle but got no reply for more than 45 days. The O.P No.5 also intimated the Complainant over phone with a guarantee for replacement of necessary parts if the same problem arose again. But the same is not accepted by the Complainant.
-3-
The case of the O.P No.5 as per his version is that it is admitted that due to some defect the Complainant handed over the vehicle for repair on 22-10-2017 prior to that the Complainant never complain regarding the major defect with the vehicle . However the O.P No.4 took the vehicle to its service center and thoroughly checked the vehicle and did the needful repair through his experienced technicians, even some additional services beyond complaint were provided and thorough checkup was looked after with a test ride of 100.K.M. On 13-11-2017 the O.P No.4 sent a letter to the Complainant to receive the vehicle from O.P No.5 but the complainant did not come forward to receive her vehicle but the Complainant willfully delayed the matter in spite of several letters from O.P No.4 and 5. The Complainant never followed the rules regarding the proper service of the vehicle in time. She has not produced the manual book for verification. At last she had filed this false case for which the case is not maintainable as she avoided willfully. As such the O.P have not made any deficiency in service nor harassed the Complainant by any means rather she is liable to pay the garage charges Rs. 50/- per day. The claim of the Complainant is not justified and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
During course of hearing, we have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.ps separately and the documents filed by the Complainant in support of her case. No documents were filed by the O.ps in support of their case. We have heard the Complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps.It is alleged by the Complainant that one by one defect was found in the vehicle since the date of purchase. The date of purchase was 07-11-2015. On 06-01-2016 crank shaft was replaced under warranty at the time of servicing after 2 months of the purchase .Again on 22-10-2017 the vehicle was given to the O.P No.5 for repair after 1 year 9 months. It is seen from the owners manual that the said vehicle is warranted for a period of 5 years or 50,000 K.M whichever is earlier, from the date of purchase. It is seen from the available documents that after 22-10-2017 the Complainant gave one letter and complain through email to the Opp. Parties on 16-11-2017,17-11-2017 and 22-11-2017 respectively with a request to withdraw the vehicle and to provide a new vehicle as he was suffering day by day. But in reply the Opp. Parties stated in their letters that replacement of vehicle is beyond the purview of the terms and conditions of their warranty.
It is alleged by the Complainant that she was not attending her school in time due to defect of the vehicle on the way for which an enquiry is going on against her. It is seen that the Complainant requested the OPP. Parties for replacement of her vehicle time and again, but they remained silent. This itself goes on to show that there were inherent defects in the vehicle, that is why it required substantial repairs. In this case no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that major repairs were required within 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The warranty period is continuing at present. As per settled principle of law it is bounden duty of both the manufacturer and the dealer to attend to the defect of the vehicle and make the vehicle defect free. If they are not in a position to do so, they should either refund the cost of the vehicle or provide a new vehicle to the consumer.
-4-
In this case the vehicle was handover to the O.P No.4 on 22-10-2017 for repair or replacement. But the Complainant had filed this complaint on 18-12-2017.The Opp. Parties remained silent for approximately 2 months and thereafter they have stated that the vehicle is in completely ok condition and is ready for delivery and lying at workshop of Mohavir Motors, G. Udayagiri. In absence of positive evidence, it clearly proves that these letters are created for the purpose of this case only. This attitude shows that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
In view of discussion held above, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest against the Opp. Parties. Hence the Opp. Parties are directed jointly and severally to provide a new vehicle in place of the said defective vehicle or to refund Rs. 51,975/- as per Retail Invoice dated 24-11-2015, the cost of the vehicle to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The C.C is disposed- of accordingly. Supply free copy of the order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
