Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/406/2017

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Auto Akurdi - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Nagra Adv.

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/406/2017
Date of Institution	:	19/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/06/2018

 

Suresh Kumar son of Revadhar Parsad r/o House No.2804/B, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Bajaj Auto Akurdi, Pune 411035, India through its official person/owner/representative.

2.     Owner/Representative/official person M/s Bajaj Auto Akurdi, Pune 411035, India.

3.     Partap Auto S.C.O 1074-75, Himalaya Marg, 17G, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160022 through its authorised person.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                      

             

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjay Verma, Vice Counsel for Sh. Vaneesh Khanna, Counsel for OPs alongwith Arvind Kumar Chopra, Works Manager for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of allegations are, complainant had purchased a Bajaj V-15 motorcycle from OP-3 against consideration of Rs.62,631.30 and Rs.2,000/- was paid as accessories in cash. On issuance of sale certificate, vehicle was got registered.  At the time of delivery, manual of the motorcycle, service book, warranty card and tool kit were not handed over.  Maintained, after taking delivery, engine of the motorcycle in question started giving trouble of heating and foul smell was being emanated.  Matter was brought to the notice of OP-3 which corrected the problem and assured this will not be repeated. It is also the case, complainant had gone to attend a marriage at Zirakpur and the motorcycle was stopped and it was tow-chained and brought to OP-3. As per OP-3, problem was rectified, but, again it started giving problem and now it has become nuisance for the complainant. Problem still subsists and continuing one. As such, complainant has knocked the doors of this Forum praying for the relief of refund of Rs.62,631.30 alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed joint reply, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable as there has been no deficiency in service on their part. It is also the case, last time when the service was done, vehicle had already covered a distance of 7561 kms. On one occasion when vehicle was brought for free service this problem was reported by the complainant, but, on inspection no such problem was found existing in the vehicle.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.  After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.         Per pleadings of the parties, sale of the vehicle is an undisputed fact before us.  Not only this, it is also admitted case, at one point of time, such problem was disclosed by the complainant, to OP-3. It is also the case, repeatedly motorcycle was brought for service and other problems with OP-3.
6.         Now we shall have a glance to the copies of job cards placed on record which reflects of the service of the vehicle done, but, in the column of the satisfaction of the customer, the customer’s signatures does not appear to have been taken. During the course of arguments, no such satisfaction expression note has been brought to our notice.
7.         Per record, date of purchase is 22.5.2016 and the date of consumer complaint is 19.5.2017 and as on date it is 13.5.2018. During this period much water has flown under the bridge or say Sukhna lake for the replacement of the vehicle.  The simple reasons are now as on date, as per daily average, it might have covered distance of 20000 – 25000 kms.  Not only this, even such claim is not authenticated with the appointment of expert engineers to say it was a manufacturing defect or incorrigible one so as to warrant its replacement or refund of the actual price. Not only this, so much so, complainant has been using the vehicle for the last more than two years, therefore, matter of its replacement or say refund of its original cost seems to be out of question.  We order as such. 
8.         Now we shall examine whether the complainant has been put to harassment or to say there has been any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is the own case, per pleadings, such defect was brought to the notice of OP-3 by the complainant. The complainant has sworn in affidavit that the problem of sound and overheating still exists so he is not in a position to enjoy the ride of the motorcycle in question. The complainant has alleged and has also sworn in affidavit that repeatedly he had taken the motorcycle to OP-3, but, now he is not satisfied with its service and such defect has not been rectified vis-a-vis overheating of the engine and sound which is causing nuisance to the complainant. However, the complainant has been using the motorcycle for the last more than two years. 
9.         From this record, we are satisfied there has been deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  In such a situation, we switch over to restorative theory of justice i.e. to retrieve and to restore the loss caused to the complainant with repeated overheating as well as abnormal noise in the engine of the motorcycle.  This could be done by award of global damages and compensation. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as damages.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/06/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President