BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 545 of 2015

Date of Institution: 3.9.2015

Date of Decision:  2.2.2016

Vijay Kumar son of Surinder Kumar resident of 451, Azad Nagar, Near Harjit Palace, 100ft Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

MRZ Motors, through its Managing Director/ Director/Manager, G.T Road, Ram Talai, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present:  For the Complainant                  :  Sh. Viney Khera,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party            : Sh.G.B.S.Bhullar,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Vijay Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Activa (SCVIIGE) ID PS white of ID type having FS white colour from Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.47,693/-. Complainant alleges that within  few days after the purchase of the said Activa scooter, some parts of the body of the said Activa Scooter faded away showing the light red colour on various places of said Activa.  The complainant made a complaint to the Opposite Party in that respect then it was assured by the Opposite Party that defective portion of the body of the Activa Scooter from where the colour has faded, shall be repainted from the company factory and in future entire colour of the body of that Activa shall remain the same and shall not fade away. But instead of repainting the same from the factory, the Opposite Party repainted the same from local market and after repainting the defective part of the body of the said Activa Scooter, the same was given to the complainant. However, again within few days from various parts of the body of the said Activa Scooter, the colour faded away. The complainant has shown the said Activa Scooter to an expert and was shocked to find that the Opposite Party has given old Activa Scooter alongwith repainted body. Said act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service.     Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the Activa Scooter with new one. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Activa Scooter in question having engine, chassis, RC number of the Activa Scooter sold with manufacturing date as 11/2014 and that out-rightly overrules the allegation of old Activa Scooter. Further dispatch advice 1411-C-01433 dated 8.11.2014 clearly shows that the said Activa Scooter with its specific numbers was loaded with other vehicles on Truck No.HR-55N-6516 vide GR No. 517 of 8.11.2014. Further VAT-XXXVI Import Slip # ICCI4ST014122127 shows the Truck (GR # 517) carrying the consignment (with complainant’s Activa Scooter) entering ICC Khanauri Check Post on 9.11.2014 i.e. genuine transportation of New/ Fresh scooter. Moreover, GR # 517 of Sandeep Carrier, New Delhi shows the above consignment of 44 vehicles (with complainant’s scooter) under Transport to MRZ, Amritsar. The Insurance Policy # 12041 of the scooter shows manufacturing year as 2014. Tax Invoice # 2114/212700 of 8.11.2014 also shows that the consignment (including the Scooter in question) was dispatched by the manufacturer on 8.11.2014 from Gurgaon and was duly received at Amritsar on 10.11.2014. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh Dhillon, Service Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by all the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Activa Two Wheeler from the opposite party vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C-4 for a sum of Rs. 47,693/- with warranty. Complainant alleged that after purchase of the said scooter, within a few days, colour from some parts of its body faded away showing light red colour at various places of the said Activa. The complainant approached the opposite party, who assured the complainant that the defective portion of the body of the Activa from where the colour has faded, shall be got repaired from the company. However, opposite party repainted the same and handed over the said Activa to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that again after a few days , the colour from the various parts of the body of the said Activa faded away. The complainant got checked the Activa from an expert, who reported vide his report Ex.C-12, which was proved by the expert vide his affidavit Ex.C-11 that the  opposite party has given old Activa with repainted body, to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service rather unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the Activa scooter in question was sold to the complainant vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C-4. As per certificate of registration Ex.C-2/Ex.OP3, the scooter in question was manufactured in November 2014. As per the dispatch advice dated 8.11.2014 Ex.OP4, the said Activa scooter was loaded with other vehicles on truck No.HR-55-N-6516 vide GR No. 517 dated 8.11.2014 Ex.OP6. The VAT slip shows the aforesaid truck carrying the consignment  entering  ICC Khanouri cheque post on 9.11.2014 Ex.OP5 also proves the genuine transportation of the said scooter. Even the Insurance policy of the vehicle in question Ex.OP7 also proves that the vehicle in question was manufactured in 11/2014 and was dispatched on 8.11.2014 to the opposite party and was delivered to the complainant vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C-4. So this vehicle was quite new one and was sold to the complainant in the same month in which it was manufactured i.e. November 2014. The colour faded on account of excessive polishing  with cheap but strong oil/cleaner/material despite the precautionary advice that the surface should be washed with soap and water only as per booklet given to the complainant Ex.OP15. Opposite party, however, admitted that the scooter has two years warranty as well as extended warranty of three years. Ld.counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the scooter in question came to the opposite party for first free service on 2.12.2014 vide job sheet Ex.OP10 and in that job sheet there was no complaint lodged by the complainant regarding colour fading. Thereafter the scooter came to the opposite party for second free service and accidental repairs on 9.3.2015 vide job sheet Ex.OP11 and this time there was report of colour fading   as the scooter was repaired due to accidental damage and some parts of the scooter were repainted and handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction as is evident from job sheet Ex.OP11 under the signatures of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant brought the scooter in question to the opposite party on 15.6.2015 vide job sheet Ex.OP12 for accidental repairs only and this time the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding colour fading of the vehicle in question. The said scooter was badly damaged and was repaired at the cost of Rs. 10,792/- as is evident from the invoice attached with this job sheet Ex.OP12. Thereafter the complainant brought the scooter in question to the opposite party on 6.7.2015 vide job sheet Ex.OP13 for service and this time there was no report made by the complainant regarding colour fading  of the scooter. Even thereafter on 3.11.2015 the complainant brought this scooter to the opposite party for service vide job sheet Ex.OP14 (during the pendency of this complaint). Even in this job sheet the complainant did not lodge any report regarding colour fading of the vehicle of the complainant. The expert examined by the complainant Mr. Navpreet Singh, who filed his report Ex.C-12 and affidavit Ex.C-11 himself has admitted that he is neither an automobile engineer nor possessed any diploma in Automobile Engineering. He is only proprietor of Sandhu Service Point. This witness has also not mentioned any date, time, month or year when he inspected the vehicle in question. The said vehicle has met with accident twice. So these scratches as shown in the photographs Ex.C-9 ,C-10  on the body of the scooter might be due to accident, the said scooter has met with. Whenever the complainant brought the scooter in question to the opposite party for service/repairs, the same was handed over to the complainant after full repair and to the satisfaction of the complainant under his own signatures  as is evident from job sheets Ex.OP10, OP11,OP12,OP13 and OP14 and the complainant neither lodged any complaint regarding repair or functioning or colour fading of the vehicle in question in the subsequent job cards. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Activa Scooter from the Opposite Party vide Invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C4 for a sum of Rs.47,693/- with warranty of two years as well as extended warranty of 3 years. Complainant submitted that Opposite Party sold him the old Activa Scooter by repainting the body of the Activa Scooter under the garb of new scooter that is why colour from some parts of its body faded away showing light red colour at various places of the said Activa. This plea of the complainant is not tenable because the Opposite Party has produced the  record of manufacturing of the Activa Scooter in question. As per certificate of registration of the vehicle in question Ex.C2/Ex.OP3, the Activa Scooter in question was manufactured by Manufacturer Honda Company in November, 2014. As per dispatch advice dated 8.11.2014 Ex.OP4, said Activa Scooter was loaded with other vehicles in truck No.HR-55-N-6516 vide GR No. 517 dated 8.11.2014 Ex.OP6, from the factory/ store premises to the retailer i.e. Opposite Party; the VAT slip shows the aforesaid truck carrying the consignment  entering  ICC Khanouri cheque post on 9.11.2014, Ex.OP5 also proves the genuine transportation of the said scooter. Even the Insurance policy of the vehicle in question Ex.OP7 also proves that the vehicle in question was manufactured in November, 2014 (11/2014) and was dispatched on 8.11.2014 to the opposite party by the manufacturer and was delivered to the complainant vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C-4. All this fully proves that the vehicle was manufactured by manufacturer Honda Company in November, 2014 and sold to the complainant in November, 2014 vide invoice Ex.C4. So, all this fully proves that the vehicle in question was quite new one as it was manufactured in the month of November, 2014 and was sold/ delivered to the complainant  in the same month i.e. November, 2014.
9. As regards, the plea of colour fading at some parts of the vehicle, the vehicle in question met with an accident twice, rather at one time, this vehicle came to Opposite Party for accidental repairs vide job sheet dated 15.6.2015 Ex.OP12. This was a case of major accident with the Activa Scooter in question and the complainant had to pay Rs.10,792/- to the Opposite Party vide Invoice attached with job sheet Ex.OP12 for the repair, denting, painting, etc. of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the vehicle in question came to Opposite Party on 6.7.2015 for service vide job sheet Ex.OP13 and on 3.11.2015 vide job sheet Ex.OP14, but the complainant never reported  about the colour fading of the vehicle in question, to the Opposite Party. Said fading of colour at some parts of the body of the vehicle in question might be due to accident as the vehicle in question has met with an accident twice and rather major accident, as is evident from the job sheet Ex.OP12 dated 15.6.2015. The expert Navpreet Singh, proprietor of Sandu Service Point, New Kapoor Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, examined by the complainant vide affidavit Ex.C11 fails to prove on record that vehicle in question has been sold to the complainant after repainting. His statement is not reliable because he did not state in his affidavit Ex.C11 that as to on which date or month he inspected the Honda Activa Scooter of the complainant nor he submitted reason for his report Ex.C12. Moreover, this witness is neither an automobile engineer nor he was holding any diploma/ degree/ certificate in automobile engineering. He is simply a proprietor of Sandu Service Point, New Kapoor Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar and not the mechanic of the automobile/ vehicles. It has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Utter Pradesh in case Tata Motors Limited Vs. Sardar Ranjeet Sigh & Anr. 2011(2)CLT 609 that where job card of previous date appears to indicates that cracks were reported in the vehicle. However, subsequent job cards do not seem to have any such complaint. At the most, affected place required to be repainted at the costs of  manufacturer. Here in this case also, even in the subsequent job cards Ex.OP13 dated 6.7.2015 and job card Ex.OP14 dated 3.11.2015 the complainant has never reported about the fading of the colour at any part of the vehicle i.e. Activa Scooter in question. Moreover, in the present case, the complainant has not made the manufacturer of the vehicle i.e. Honda Company as party to the present complaint who has to fulfill the warranty terms and conditions.
10. Resultantly, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
11. Consequently, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 02.02.2016.                                       (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member