STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.  Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai Pune Road,  Akurdi, Pune 411035, through its Deputy General Manager(Finance)

2.  Bajaj Auto Limited, #B-60/61, Nariana Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi 110028, through its Deputy General Manager(Finance)

3.  Bajaj Auto Limited, 11^th Floor, T.D.I., Business Centre, T.D.I. City, Sector-118, Chandigarh Kharar road, NH 21, Mohali-160055, through its Deputy General Manager (Finance) 

                                                                      ……Appellants

V e r s u s

1. Masoom Sushant Gumbhir son of Sh.Vivek Kumar Gumbhir, resident of #3077/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.  
2. Hind Motors Limited, # 9, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

                                                         …….Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 28.09.2018 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 525/2016.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER

Argued by: Mr.Arshdeep Singh Cheema,Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Karan S.Gill,Advocate for  respondent No.1

                   Mr.Vikas Kuthiala,Advocate for respondent No.2

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed this appeal against order dated 28.9.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant. 

2..      As per facts on record, the complainant purchased a motorcycle for an amount of Rs.1,32,400/- on 20.7.2015.  It was got registered with the competent authority against Registration No.CH-01BD-1010.  It was his grievance that soon after its purchase, the motorcycle started giving trouble.  The defect of blinking sensor light on its dashboard panel was  noted. He went to authorized service station of the appellants-OP No.4/respondent No.2 umpteen number of times, however, his grievance was not redressed. The motorcycle was having many problems like faulty crank angle, noisy cylinder and  blinking of sensor light on the dashboard indicating some trouble with the motorcycle. During journey, the motorcycle stopped abruptly on 6.2.2016. When an attempt was made to start it,  sensor failure indicator light appeared on the dashboard. The motorcycle was again taken to OP No.4/respondent No.2. It was brought to their notice that there was defect in the crank angle, however, his grievance was not redressed, whereupon, he sent a legal notice to the appellants on 21.4.2016 stating his anguish in not attending to his grievance. Date-wise difficulty suffered by him was  also brought to their notice  and a request was made to refund his amount with interest. Vide letter dated 21.5.2016, the appellants sent reply to the legal notice in which specific denial of the averments made by the complainant was not made, rather a vague reply was given. To reject claim of the complainant, that there was some defect in the crank angle, the following reply was given;

“If Crank Angle Sensor is defective, engine will give starting trouble and even if engine starts, it will misfire or will stop frequently. With defective Crank Angle Sensor vehicle cannot run for hundreds/thousands kilometers. Whereas, your vehicle has already covered 5000 kilometers.  After attending the vehicle, it has run more than 100 kilometers smoothly which would not have, possible if Crank Angle Sensor was defective. Even while giving delivery of the vehicle, during test ride, you yourself has witnessed that vehicle was perfectly right at more than 100 kms per hour speed, which is not possible with defective Crank Angle Sensor. This all shows that your vehicle is/was in a perfect running condition when tested and delivered.”

No effort was made to redress  grievance of the complainant and in an arbitrary manner the appellants/OPs tried to deny the benefit of spending huge money. Under such circumstances, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.

3.              Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs. It was stated that no such defect, as alleged, existed in the motorcycle. History of repairs effected was given to show that there was no defect in the Crank angle sensor.  

4.           The complainant filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the complaint.

5.              Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order under challenge, directing the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.1,32,400/- alongwith compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.7000/-. The awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a specified period, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences. Hence, this appeal.

6.          It has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the appellants that if there existed defect in any part of the motorcycle, the Forum should have ordered replacement of the same, instead of  ordering refund of price of the motorcycle purchased.  He said that crank angle sensor of the vehicle was not very costly item, which was found defective, and as such, order passed by the Forum was not justified. To the contrary, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant supported the judgment passed.

7.        We have gone through the record. To assess truth of averments made by both the parties, the motorcycle was sent to Punjab Engineering College(Deemed to be University), Chandigarh for technical examination and opinion of experts regarding defects alleged by the complainant.  The motorcycle was taken to the  said College on 11.12.2017 and it was inspected by a team of technical experts consisting one expert of the rank of Professor, one Associate Professor and one more technical person from the department of Mechanical Engineering. The experts rendered the following expert opinion:

“The vehicle having registration no.CH01 BD-1010, Engine No.JLZCFC11027, Chassis No. MD 2A55 FZXFCC26852 was presented for inspection.  The vehicle in question was inspected by the committee. The vehicle in question could not start even after replacing the battery of another motorcycle (similar make).  The Diagnostic tool brought by Pratap Auto, Chandigarh was used to know the problem in the vehicle, which repeatedly show “Cylinder Misfire”.  The vehicle odometer reading on the day of inspection was 10220.

         On perusal of the records and with the result of the diagnostic tool the committee is of the view that there is a problem in the crankshaft position sensor of the vehicle in question.  The first sign of crankshaft position sensor failure, usually, is the refusal of the engine to start. The crankshaft position sensor monitors the position and speed of the crank shaft and other parameters that play an important role when starting the engine. If the crankshaft position sensor is having a problem, the vehicle may have intermittent starting issues or may not start at all.”

8.           It was stated that they failed to kick-start the motorcycle. With diagnostic tools brought by a representative of the appellants, when attempt was made to start the motorcycle, it showed indication of “cylinder misfire”. On looking at the entire report, it was said that there was problem in the crankshaft position of the vehicle.  By looking at the grievance of the complainant and position of the motorcycle, it was rightly indicated that there was inherent defect in the motorcycle under examination.

9.           The Forum, after noting objections, filed to the said report, rightly said that nothing cogent was brought to show that there was no manufacturing defect in the said motorcycle. It was only said that if the motorcycle had covered 10200kms when it was put under examination, it meant that it was working properly and if there was crankshaft position sensor failure, the motorcycle should not have covered that much distance. It was stated that the committee, which examined the motorcycle, did not have requisite tools to examine it.  The tools for inspection were provided by the representative of the company. We are not going to accept any of the objections.  The representative of the appellants failed to kick-start the motorcycle even after replacing its battery. Defects were being indicated by respondent No.1/complainant to the appellants/their representatives repeatedly.  He, even sent legal notice which was replied in a very vague manner, rather it was said that there was no defect in the motorcycle and crankshaft angle. No attempt was made to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant purchased a new motorcycle and continued to suffer on account of its defects.

10.        In view of above, order passed qua refund of amount paid appears to be perfectly justified. So far as grant of compensation is concerned, we intend to decline the relief to that extent. The complainant has used the motorcycle and it had covered more than 10,000 Kms. If that is so, in our opinion, he is not entitled to get any compensation. To that extent, it is ordered that the complainant shall be entitled to get refund of the amount paid i.e. Rs.1,32,400/- with litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. With above modification, this appeal stands disposed of.               

11 .          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.