BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.205/15.
Date of instt.: 09.09.2015.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2016.
Sukhraj, aged 32 years son of Sh. Ram Saroop, r/o Balraj Nagar, Gali No.4, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Modline Automotive (Authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto) Kurukshetra Road, Pipli, Distt. Kurukshetra through its prop./partners.
- Modline Automotive, Jind Bye Pass, Kaithal through its owner/prop. Fouzi.
- Bajaj Auto Limited, Regd. Head Office, Akrudi Pune, India, Service Deptt. Through its authorized signatory.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Naresh Rana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Brish Bhan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Bajaj Optima bearing chassis No.MD 2A28AZ7FWM00602, Engine No.BHZWFM00545, registration No.HR-64-8899, Model 2015 from Op No.1 for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- vide bill No.26 dt. 13.04.2015. It is alleged that the complainant has insured the said vehicle with Reliance General Insurance Company for the period 14.04.2015 to 13.04.2016. It is further alleged that just after the purchase of vehicle, the nozzle of the said vehicle became defective and failed to work and stopped to supply diesel in the engine. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops for replacement of the said nozzle but they demanded Rs.4,000/- for replacement of said nozzle. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the service-book (Manual Owner) propriety parts like tyres, tubes, FIP (Fuel Injection Pump/Nozzle) Starter motor and battery are warranted by their respective manufacturers and should be claimed on them directly by the customer and the Bajaj Auto Ltd. shall not be liable in any manner to replace them through their dealers will give full assistance in performing such claims on their manufacture. In this case as per version of complainant, the Nozzle (Fuel Injection Pump) of the vehicle in question found defective and the Ops assisted the complainant and gave a letter in the name of Authorized Dealer of Bosch Company i.e. Pawan Diesel Service, Shop No.7, 8, Sikka Market, Kaithal and the complainant could have replaced the defective part Nozzle of the said vehicle but the
complainant did not approach the manufacturing company of the said Nozzle and filed the present complaint against the Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Mark C1 to Mark C5 and closed evidence on 13.06.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA and Mark-RB and closed evidence on 01.08.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased from Op No.1 a Bajaj Optima (Three-wheeler) bearing registration No.HR-64-8899 vide bill No.26 dt. 13.04.2014. After sometime, the nozzle of the said auto became defective and stopped to supply the diesel in the engine. The Ops have admitted this fact in their reply that the nozzle of the auto in question was found defective. But they pleaded that the same was manufactured by Bosch Company and the warranty of the same is given by the said company and the complainant should claim the warranty directly from the said company. The Ops pleaded that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the service-book (Manual Owner) propriety parts like tyres, tubes, FIP (Fuel Injection Pump/Nozzle) Starter motor and battery are warranted by their respective manufacturers and should be claimed on them directly by the customer and the Ops are not liable to replace the same. As already stated above, the complainant had purchased the auto in question from the Ops and the warranty regarding the vehicle (auto) in question was given by the Ops to the complainant. The cost of the vehicle (auto) in question was received by the Op No.1. Therefore, there is a privity of contract between the complainant and Op No.1. So, it is for the Ops to get the nozzle in question replaced from the manufacturer of the same but the Ops have failed to get replaced the same, hence, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective nozzle with a new one free of cost and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.09.2016. (Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
