Haryana

Karnal

416/2011

Ram Phal S/o Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Amar Autos Sale Service - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Kashyap

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 416 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt. 13.07.2011

                                                               Date of decision:30.08.2016

 

Ramphal son of Shri Rajbir r/o village & P.O. Nagla Roran Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. M/s Amar Autos Sale, Service, Spares, Parts near Civil Hospital, opposite Taxi Stand, Indri District Karnal (Haryana)

2. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 37^th K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its General Manager.

3. M/s Nirmal Motors, Karnal.

                                                                            ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. B.S. Kashyap Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Surjit Narwal Advocate for the opposite party no.1

 Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one splender plus motorcycle from opposite party no.1 on 3.1.2011 for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. As per the sale certificate issued by opposite party no.1 weight of the motorcycle was mentioned as 109 kilograms. He got weighed the same from computerized Dharam Kanta, Karnal Road, Indri and found that the weight was 100 kilograms. Moreover, its plug was also found to be duplicate, which was not working properly. So, he got the said plug photographed from a photographer. He had to purchase new plug from opposite party no.1 for Rs.60/- and bill was issued by opposite party no.1 in that regard. Thus, opposite party no.1 had cheated him and was selling duplicate spare parts, which amounted to unfair trade practice. When he brought the matter to the notice of opposite party no.1, he was told that opposite party no.2 company was supplying duplicate parts to opposite party no.1 and the same were being supplied to the public at large. Thereafter, he got issued a notice dated 01.02.2011 to opposite party no.1, but no reply was given to the said notice. Therefore, he sent reminder dated 24.5.2011, but the same also did not yield any result. He requested the opposite parties to replace the duplicate parts fitted in the motorcycle with the genuine parts, but the opposite parties flatly refused to accede his request. Even opposite party no.1 refused to do the service of the motorcycle. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party no.1 used to sell new vehicles under the capacity of sub-dealer of M/s Nirmal Motors, Karnal. He used to sell the motorcycle in the same condition in which the company had delivered to it. The company mentioned the Kerb weight of the motorcycle as 109 kilograms. Kerb weight of a vehicle means full weight of the vehicle complete with fuel, oil and other essential fluids i.e. 0.9 litres Engine Oil, .75 litre at draining,  fuel tank 11 litres (minimum) 1 litre (usable) 162-16cm front Fork oil at Disassembly. The booklet/ service book of the motorcycle was also handed over to the complainant at the time of sale of motorcycle and the said booklet the opposite party not had mentioned all the specifications pertaining to the motorcycle. It has been denied that the opposite party no.1 had fitted duplicate parts in the motorcycle. However, it has been pleaded that opposite party no.1 changed the plug with new one bearing no.9805657738005 and in that regard issued a bill to the complainant. The complainant could get checked parts of the motorcycle from some engineers, who could submit report whether the same were genuine or not. There was neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1 and the complainant has filed the complaint on false and frivolous grounds just to grab the money from the opposite party no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Mr. Suresh Khullar representative of opposite party no.2 appeared in response to the notice but none put into appearance on its behalf on 5.8.2015. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it. The opposite party no.3 was also proceeded exparte vide order dated 5.8.2015 as none appeared on its behalf despite service.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C11 have been tendered. Opposite party no.1 could not produce evidence despite availing number of opportunities. Therefore, the evidence of the opposite party no.1 was closed, vide order dated 26.7.2016.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased one Splender plus motorcycle manufactured by opposite party no.2, from opposite party no.1 on 3.1.2011. As per allegations of the complainant weight of the motorcycle was mentioned in the sale letter as 109 kilograms, but when he got the same weighed at Dharam Kanta, the weight was found only 100 kilograms. It has further been alleged that spark plug of the motorcycle was found duplicate and he got changed the same by purchasing new one from opposite party no.1.

7.                The opposite party no.1 in its written statement clarified that Kerb weight of the motorcycle was mentioned as 109 kilograms. In this regard booklet/ owner’s manual has been produced, wherein the Kerb weight of the motorcycle has been mentioned as 109 kilograms and capacity has been mentioned Engine Oil 0.9  but.75 litre at draining, Fuel Tank 11 litres (minimum) , Fuel Reserve Capacity 1 litre (usable), Front Fork Oil at Disassembly 162-165 cm3. The meaning of the Kerb weight is the total weight of the vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables (e.g. motor oil and coolant) and fuel tank of fuel.

 8.               The complainant has produced the weight certificate issued by Jeet Computerized Dharam Kanda Ex.C10, according to which the weight of Hero Honda vehicle was found 100 kilograms. No engine number, chasis number or registration certificate number of the vehicle which was weighed has been mentioned in the said document. The gross weight was found 100 kilograms. The Kerb weight of the motorcycle was not got checked by the complainant after filling fuel tank oil and other essential fluids. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, the complainant has not been able to establish that the Kerb weight of the motorcycle was not 109 kilograms as mentioned in the sale letter and the booklet/owner’s manual.

9.                No doubt the complainant had purchased one spark plug from opposite party no.1 on 24.1.2011 for Rs.60/- and bill Ex.C3 was issued by opposite party no.1 in that regard, but this fact does not lead to the conclusion that the opposite party no.1 had fitted duplicate spark plug in the motorcycle at the time of sale to the complainant. In order to prove that the spark plug fitted in the motorcycle was duplicate the complainant could seek opinion of some Expert Engineer, but he did not make any effort in that direction. Spark Plug is such an equipment which may became unusable at any time. The complainant has not shown any document indicating that there was any guarantee or warranty in respect of the spark plug. The bald affidavit of the complainant that spark plug fitted in the motorcycle was duplicate cannot be taken to be the gospel truth as there is no other evidence to substantiate such plea. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member