Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/112

Sukhwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Balaji Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Oct 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

      C. C. No.                            112 of 2019

  Date of Institution :           24.04.2019

  Date of Decision :             21.10.2019

Sukhwant Singh aged about 39 years son of  Boota Singh resident of Village Bughipura, Tehsil and District Moga.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Balaji Motors, Opposite Punjab & Sind Bank, Panjgrain Kalan, District Faridkot through its authorized person.
2. Pankaj Motors, Ferozepur Road, GT Road, Moga, through its authorized person.
3. Bajaj Motors Ltd. Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra 411035, through its authorized person.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Complainant in person,

 Sh Narinder Kumar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective motorcycle and for also

cc no.- 112 of 2019

 

directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle make Discover 125, colour black/red, engine number JZYRHB12039, chassis number MD2A15BY6HRB61975 from OP-1 vide bill dated 24.06.2017 for 48,000/- and also got issued the registration certificate from District Transport Office, Moga. It is submitted that just after few days of purchase, motorcycle in question started giving trouble to complainant as there was leakage problem in its engine. Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 several times and despite assurance by them after every repair,  matter was not resolved.  Complainant also requested OP-2 regarding this defect but said issue was not resolved by same and finding no other alternative, complainant moved complaint to OP-3 manufacturer in August, 2018, who directed him to visit the office of OP-2. Complainant did so and after repair, OP-2 assured to remove the defect, but problem still persisted. In February, 2019, complainant again lodged complaint with OPs and he again visited the office of OP-1 and OP-2, but they failed to remove the defect and told him that leakage problem is due to some manufacturing defect and it cannot be removed and issue can be resolved only by replacement of engine of said motorcycle with new one for which permission of OP-1, 3 and concerned government authorities is required. Complainant made

cc no.- 112 of 2019

several requests to OPs to replace the defective motor cycle, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade  mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the said defective motorcycle and to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 3 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is vexatious. It is not maintainable and requires to be dismissed. Complainant purchased the said motorcycle on 1.07.2017 and filed present complaint regarding its defect in April 2019. In February, 2019, vehicle was having reading of 15946 kms. Moreover, vehicle of complainant met with an accident and he also obtained insurance claim regarding said accident. It is brought before the Forum that if a vehicle mets with an accident, it goes out of warranty and as per warranty terms and conditions, he has filed the present complaint after expiry of warranty period. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in said motorcycle as when complainant got conducted the first service for his vehicle on 17.09.2017 when it covered mileage upto 700 kms, he did not complain about any leakage in its engine. The schedule of service

cc no.- 112 of 2019

starts from 500 km to 700 km  and thus, there is no problem in said vehicle from the date of purchase. Meaning thereby, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and no cause of action arises against them and it is devoid of any merits. After the accident, vehicle has gone out of warranty, but as a goodwill gesture, OPs extended free services to the vehicle of complainant. Free and paid services have been provided to the vehicle of complainant and during these services, he did not bring into their notice any such defect of leakage of engine. It is  averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                        OP-2 also filed reply where it has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as answering OP has no link with Bajaj Motors ltd. OP-2 has nothing to do with sale, service or spare part of motorcycle of complainant and Company has no concern with Bajaj Automobiles. Lengthy evidence is required in present complaint which is not possible in the summary proceedings of the Consumer Forum and therefore, it is required to be referred to Civil Court. Complainant has concocted a false story and sternly denied that complainant ever approached them regarding problem in his vehicle. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and there is

 

cc no.- 112 of 2019

no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

6                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Robin Garg Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Dwarka Nath Ex OP-2 and document Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

8                                                 We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                          We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle make Discover manufactured by OP-3 from OP-1 vide bill dated 24.06.2017 for 48,000/- on cash payment. Just after few days of purchase, there occurred leakage problem in the engine of said motorcycle. Complainant reported the matter to all OPs, but defect of leakage in engine could not be removed by them which requires replacement. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not removed the defect from his motorcycle, which caused harassment to him and it amounts to deficiency

cc no.- 112 of 2019

in service on their part. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that there is no deficiency in service on their part and during free and paid services, complainant did not make any complaint regarding any such defect to them and now, vehicle of complainant is out of warranty period and therefore, no replacement can be made. There is no dispute regarding purchase of said motorcycle and to the fact that complainant is the consumer of OPs and it is also admitted that complainant reported the matter regarding leakage from engine to OPs. Main issue is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not removed the said defect of leakage from the engine of motorcycle. As per complainant there is some manufacturing problem in motorcycle in question due to which leakage defect cannot be removed from it. It is observed that there is only minor dispute of leakage from engine of motorcycle, which can be resolved by efficient repairs. Ground made by Ops that due to accident motorcycle of complainant has gone out of warranty period, has no relevance in the eyes of law as Ops themselves cannot deny free services during warranty period on their own terms and conditions. There seems to be deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing effective and requisite attention to the requests of complainant in not removing the said defect of leakage from engine of said motorcycle by not extending proper services. 

10                                                  From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has

cc no.- 112 of 2019

succeeded in proving his case. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to provide best and effective services free of costs upto the entire satisfaction of complainant and repair the motor cycle of complainant and remove the defect of leakage of oil from the engine of motorcycle of complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21.10.2019

 

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President