ORDER Dated: 06-01- 2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant filed this complaint on 25.11.2010 and alleged that on

18.04.2009 he has purchased a DTS-I 200 Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing

registration No .DL-6S AC-5150 from OP1 for Rs.71,450/- with insurance

and warranty for two years. Complainant further alleged that the bike started

giving problems of overheating, smell of burning , oil seen outside of engine

chamber, low average 32 to 35 KMPL during running stop suddenly,

reduction of engine oil, hardness in running , black heavy smoke, starting

problem, extra noise in engine having very low pick up , not running

Page 2 of 5

properly in speed , vibrating while running, not having proper breaks and

consuming oil heavily just after purchase of the vehicle and just after one

week of purchase of the vehicle he visited OP1 and was told that with time

and after first service these all defects will be automatically rectified. On

05.05.2009 complainant visited OP2 and paid Rs. 800/- on account of

charges during service but the problems could not be rectified. On

30.05.2009 he again approached OPs and paid Rs. 1000/- on account of

charges. In first week of July 2009 as well as on 18.07.2009 complainant

again visited the OPs with the same complaint and paid Rs. 1000/- as

charges for the third service but the defects could not be rectified and the

complaints and defects in bike persists. Despite various visits , letters and

legal notice dated 30.08.2010 the grievance of the complainant could not be

redressed hence complainant prayed to replace or return the total value of Rs

71,450/- of the vehicle with interest @ 24% p.a. ,Rs. 1 Lakhs as

compensation mental and physical harassment.

2. In reply, OP1 and OP2 did not deny the purchase of Bajaj Pulsar Bike

Registration no. 6S AC-5150 on the payment of Rs. 71,450/- and denied rest

of the allegations made in the complaint. OPs further alleged that the present

complaint is vague complaint’s vehicle was serviced only three occasion by

OP1 i.e. on 25.09.2010 and rest of the services were made by M/s Summan

Auto to whom the complainant has not made a party in this complaint. As

per the vehicle history maintained with OP1 , it suggested that complainant

bike covered a mileage of 27530 on 05.09.2010 and it was defect free hence

there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.

3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the

objections made by the OPs and supported his complaint.

4. In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with

documents i.e. original cash memo/ bill (Ex. CW-1/1) , original insurance

policy (Ex. CW-1/2) , copy of e-mail dated 25.10.2009 (Ex. CW-1/3), copy

Page 3 of 5

of draft verification (Ex. CW-1/4) , copy of account summary of HSBC

bank (Ex. CW-1/5), cash bill dated 28.10.2009 issued by OP1 (Ex. CW-

1/6), cash bill dated 12.12.2009 raised by M/s Suman Bajaj (Ex.CW-1/7), e-

mail dated 07.01.2010 (Ex. CW-1/8),cash bill dated 09.01.2010 raised by M/s

Suman Bajaj (Ex. CW-1/9) , copy of account summary of HSBC showing

the payment dated 07.02.2010 to M/s Suman Auto (Ex. CW1/10) , computer

printout of email dated 20.08.2010 to OP2 (Ex. CW1/11) , office copy of

legal notice (Ex. CW1/12) , original U.P.C. Slip (Ex. CW1/13) , three postal

slips (Ex. CW1/14 to Ex. CW1/16) (colly) , copy of job card bearing no.

1123, copy of original invoice dated 01.09.2010 (Ex. CW1/17), copy of

original invoice dated 01.09.2010 (Ex. CW1/18) , letter dated 06.09.2010

issued by OP2 (Ex. CW1/19) , copy of envelop (Ex. CW1/21) copy of job

card no. 4398 (Ex. CW1/21) , expert report (Ex.CW1/22).

5. In support of reply, OPs filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar (its work

manager).

6. Both the parties filed their written arguments.

7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties

and their written and oral arguments. In this case points to be considered are

as under:-

(a)Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the bike purchased by

complainant?

(c) Relief?

8. In reply, OP1 and OP2 did not deny the purchase of Bajaj Pulsar Bike

Registration no. DL 6S AC-5150 on the payment of Rs. 71,450/-

Deposition of the complainant as well as original bill (Ex. CW1/1) proves

that complainant has purchased Bajaj Pulsar DTs-200 bike from Bagga

Link Bajaj Karol Bagh New Delhi. Hence complainant is a consumer.

Page 4 of 5

9. The complainant in his evidence has deposed that the purchased bike was

suffering from manufacturing defects from the day he purchased the

motorcycle and after one week of purchase he visited OPs who assured that

after first service all the defects in the motorcycle will automatically rectified.

Even after 3 rd service of the bike the manufacturing defects of the bike were

not rectified. Complainant did not file the record of first three services of the

bike. Mr. Sanjay Kumar deposed on behalf of OPs that first service of the

complainant’s bike was done at 4799 Kms on16.08.2009 , second service was

done at 10330 Kms and third service at 27530 Kms was done on 25.09.2009

and only minor defects were noticed and removed. There was no

manufacturing defect in the said vehicle as alleged by the complainant

thereafter rest of the services were made at M/s Suman Autos (OP3) which

has been deleted from array of parties. It is pertinent to mention herein that

on 31.01.2011 on the request of complainant’s advocate OP3 was deleted

from the array of parties. OPs submitted history of the complainant’s vehicle

(Annexure R/1) which clarify that complainant’s vehicle was checked on

16/08/2009, 28.10.2009 and 25.09.2010 wherein no manufacturing defects

were noticed. In support of the complaint the complainant filed inspection

report (Ex. CW1/22) dated 19.03.2012 by M/s T. U. Siddiqui and associates

which is not supported with the affidavit of its maker M/s T.U. Siddiqui and

associates. As this is a case of manufacturing defect of the vehicle hence this

forum directed complainant on 10.04.2015 that complainant’s vehicle be

examined by the expert but complainant failed to comply this order of the

forum.

10. Looking to these above facts and circumstances we are of the considered

opinion that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defects in his

purchased bike. It is also pertinent to mention herein that none is appearing

on behalf of the complainant since 11.05.2016 ,21.07.2016,22.09.2016 and

08.12.2016 therefore the case is decided on the basis of evidence available on

Page 5 of 5

the file and written arguments available by the parties as well as oral

arguments by the parties. Accordingly the case is dismissed.

11. Both the parties will bear their own cost. Copy of the order made available to

the parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on………