DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.368 of 27-07-2011 Decided on 28-10-2011
Naresh Kumar, aged about 50 years son of Madan Gopal, # 15578, Street No.3, Hazura Kapura Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
M/s Brar Scooters, Near Tinkoni, Goniana Road, Bathinda authorized dealer of Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (Pvt.) through its proprietor/authorized signatory. M/s Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (Pvt.) Limited, Plot No.1, Sector 3, I.M.T. Maneshar, District Gurgaon- 122050, through its Managing Director and authorized signatory.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Nishant Mehta, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. B.S. Mann, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one motorcycle CB Shine (CBF125) from the opposite party No.1 vide delivery challan No.215 dated 30.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.45,617/- after taking loan from State Bank of Patiala. The complainant has alleged that some technical defects were occurred in the above said motorcycle on 01.06.2011 and he approached the opposite party No.1 with request that there is some manufacturing/technical defects in the said motorcycle. The opposite party No.1 on the request of the complainant, replaced the above said motorcycle with new one by changing the Engine and Chassis number in the delivery challan No.215 and also changed the key number with the motorcycle bearing Chassis No.ME4JC369CB8027854 and Engine No.JC36E1027902, key number 8309, Battery No.75933558 of Excide company. The Invoice of the said motorcycle has not been issued by the opposite party No.1 on the same day rather it has been issued to the complainant on 14.06.2011. The fault again occurred on 03.06.2011 in the above said replaced motorcycle and the complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 and complained about the manufacturing defect in the chain set as well as in the Engine of the said motorcycle. On finding the fault in the chain set, the Serviceman of the opposite party No.1 changed the chain set after taking out of the same from the previous motorcycle supplied to the complainant but the fault in the chain set is still as it is. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 in the month of June, 2011 and the Employee of the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the above said defect will be removed, but till date they have not removed the same which shows that there is manufacturing defect in the said motorcycle. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 time and again but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that now from many places of chassis of the motorcycle, left its polish and due to this, the motorcycle has picked up rust from that places and from top of the engine. The complainant has also got served a legal notice dated 15.06.2011 to the opposite parties but they did not give any reply to the said legal notice. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer to get back the motorcycle from the complainant and to refund the price of the motorcycle i.e. Rs.45,617/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for the purchase of Honda Shine Motorcycle and after test ride of the specific motorcycle, he chose the specific motorcycle and accordingly, on receipt of the payment of Rs.45,317/-, the opposite party No.1 gave the delivery of CB Shine Honda Motorcycle to the complainant and issued a delivery challan No.215 dated 30.05.2011. Thereafter, the complainant came to the Show Room of the opposite party No.1 and started making complaint with regard to the defects in the Motorcycle. The working of the said motorcycle was checked by the Company Experienced Mechanics and the Foreman of the opposite party No.1 but no such defect was found by them but just to satisfy the complainant, the opposite party No.1 changed the said motorcycle with new one. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the complainant was not habitual to ride Honda Motorcycle and again came to the opposite party No.1 with complaint of sound in the chain. On riding by the Experienced Mechanics and Foreman, no such defect was found and the complainant was asked to use the motorcycle and if there would be any defect, the same would be removed but the complainant was not satisfied and he stressed for change of the chain set. The opposite party No.1 who got the dealership of Honda Motors recently, opted to change the chain set of the motorcycle. The opposite party No.1 has denied that the fault in the chain set existed even after change of the chain set. No expert report has been placed on file by the complainant with regard to any defect in the motorcycle in question. The complainant did not come to the opposite party No.1 after changing the chain set which was changed on persistent asking of the complainant. Since, there remained no such defect in the chain set and as such, there is no question of approaching the complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further denied that the polish of the motorcycle has left from may places and the motorcycle has become rusty. There is no such technical/manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in question. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one motorcycle CB Shine (CBF125) from the opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2011 vide delivery challan No.215 of Rs.45,617/-. The complainant complained about some defects in the said motorcycle on 01.06.2011 and on his request, the opposite party No.1 has replaced the motorcycle with new one by changing the Engine and Chassis number in the delivery challan No.215 and also changed the key number with the motorcycle bearing Chassis No.ME4JC369CB8027854 and Engine No.JC36E1027902, key number 8309, Battery No.75933558 of Excide company. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 with a defect in chain set in the replaced motorcycle as well as in the engine. The Technical Engineer of the company has checked the chain set and found that there is no defect in the chain set but on repeated requests of the complainant, the chain set of the replaced motorcycle was changed. 6. There are different allegations of the complainant that the motorcycle originally handed over to the complainant and it had the manufacturing defect in it which has been replaced by the opposite parties but the second motorcycle which has been given to the complainant after replacement, had also defects in it. There are defects in the chain set and paint from many places of the Chassis and Engine had left its place and due to this problem, the motorcycle has become rusty. 7. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant is not habitual in riding the motorcycle. When he complained about the sound in the chain of the motorcycle in question, the Experienced Technical and Foreman found no defect as alleged by the complainant. The complainant despite got checking of his motorcycle from experienced persons insisted on the changing of the chain set. On the insistence of the complainant, the chain set was changed but the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 again with same problem. The opposite parties checked the vehicle in question and found no defect in it, there was also no defect regarding the paint. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C-12 to prove his version with regard to manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in question. 8. Tilak Raj, the Mechanic has opined in Inspection Certificate vide Ex.C-12 that he has inspected the motorcycle of Naresh Kumar-the complainant and found that some parts of the motorcycle were rusty but in this certificate, he has nowhere mentioned that which parts were rusty and what was the reason of rust. Moreover, this certificate was issued by Tilak Raj on 06.10.2011 i.e. after four months of the purchase of the motorcycle. There is no affidavit of Tilak Raj on file to support Ex.C-12. Therefore, it cannot be considered as expert evidence. Hence, there is no expert evidence placed on file by the complainant to prove his version. 9. Moreover, the condition of the motorcycle depends upon many factors such as weather, road conditions and manner of riding the motorcycle. Thus, the complainant has miserably failed to prove any defect in the motorcycle in question. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 28-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
