BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.482 of 2015

Date of Instt. 06.11.2015

Date of Decision : 10.08.2016

Kiran Parkash son of Mohan Lal, R/o H.No.55/5, Sarabha Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1.M/s Dada Motors, authorized dealer of Bajaj Autors Limited, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Representative. 2.M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune-411035.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Jatinder Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Inder Mohal Pal Singh Law Officer of OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased motorcycle Bajaj Discover D105 from OP No.1 vide invoice No.81802002284 dated 9.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.50,875/- after getting the same financed from Bajaj Finance. Complainant submitted that the said motorcycle started giving problems of engine oil, clutch jerky, speedo meter, etc after about one month of its purchase. Complainant approached OP No.1 and they did not attend complainant and the complaint. Thereafter, complainant visited the service station of OP No.1 on various date i.e. 27.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 8.7.2015, 11.7.2015, 13.7.2015, 14.7.2015, 16.7.2015 and 17.7.2015 but they did not attend the job properly. OPs did not rectify the defects in the motorcycle nor replaced the motorcycle of the complainant nor returned the amount of the motorcycle to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to rectify the defects in the motorcycle or to return its price to the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through Sh.Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of OPs and filed written reply pleading that complainant purchased the motorcycle in question on 9.1.2015 after taking the test drive and after checking the features of the motorcycle. As per the service schedule of the vehicle, the complainant has availed the first free service of the vehicle on 9.2.2015 at 349KM reading of the speedo meter and second free service on 21.4.2015 at 1145KM reading. On 27.6.2015 again complainant got repaired his vehicle at 2631KM reading and on 11.7.2015 at 2930KM reading and the same was repaired under warranty. Moreover, whenever complainant approached the OPs regarding any defect in the vehicle the same was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant under warranty. OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed her evidence.

4. On the other hand, law officer of OPs has tendered affidavits Ex.OP/A & Ex.OP/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11, Ex.OP/B/1 and Ex.OP/B/2 and closed his evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased motorcycle Bajaj Discover D105 bearing registration No.PB08CW-8238 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 9.1.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.50,875/- after getting the same financed from Bajaj Finance. Complainant submitted that the said motorcycle started giving problems of engine oil, clutch jerky, speedo meter, etc after about one month of its purchase. Complainant approached OP No.1 and they did not attend complainant and the complaint. Thereafter, complainant visited the service station of OP No.1 on various dates as mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint but they did not attend the job properly. OPs did not rectify the defects in the motorcycle nor replaced the motorcycle of the complainant nor returned the amount of the motorcycle to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainant purchased the motorcycle in question on 9.1.2015 after taking the test drive and after checking the features of the motorcycle. As per the record of the OPs i.e. vehicle history of the motorcycle of complainant Ex.OP4, whenever complainant visited the service station of OPs for free service or other repairs within warranty, he was properly attended and all the job was done properly and the motorcycle was returned to the complainant after full repair and to the satisfaction of the complainant. As per this vehicle history Ex.OP4, complainant availed first free service of the vehicle on 9.2.2015 at 349KM reading of the speedo meter. At that time, complainant did not make any complaint with regard to the functioning of the motorcycle in question. Thereafter, complainant came for second free service on 21.4.2015 at 1145KM reading and free service was done. At that time also complainant did not raise any complaint with regard to the functioning of the motorcycle. Thereafter, complainant came to the service station of the OPs on 27.6.2015 at 2631KM reading and the complainant got repaired his vehicle and the motorcycle of the complainant was repaired to his satisfaction. Thereafter, complainant came to the service station of OPs on 11.7.2015 at 2930KM reading and the same was repaired under warranty without charging any amount, to the satisfaction of the complainant. Only amount of labour charges and the special work got done by complainant was charged. Thereafter, complainant never approached the OP service station but filed complaint to the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2 through email dated 18.7.2015 Ex.C4. Resultantly, a letter was written to the complainant dated 21.7.2015 Ex.OP3 to bring his motorcycle at service station of OP No.1 of any working day between 10.00 AM to 4.00 PM for necessary service and repair, if any but the complainant did not turn-up and filed the present complaint. OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased motorcycle Bajaj Discover D105 bearing registration No.PB08CW-8238 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 9.1.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.50,875/-. Complainant submitted that the said motorcycle became defective and was giving problems of engine oil, clutch jerky, speedo meter, etc and he approached OP No.1 on 9.2.2015 and thereafter on 27.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 8.7.2015, 11.7.2015, 13.7.2015, 14.7.2015, 16.7.2015 and 17.7.2015 but the OP No.1 service station did not attend the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant has produced only one job card dated 11.7.2015 Ex.C3. Whereas the OPs have produced on record the vehicle history of the motorcycle of the complainant Ex.OP4 alongwith other relevant documents i.e. repair invoice of small amount charged from the complainant regarding change of oil filter, engine oil, etc and labour charges only which are Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP9. The complainant did not rebut this vehicle history of the vehicle of complainant Ex.OP4 and as per this vehicle history Ex.OP4, complainant approached OP No.1 service station for the first time on 9.2.2015 at 349KM reading for first free service and at that time complainant did not complain for any defect/problem in the motorcycle. Thereafter, complainant visited the service station of OP NO.1 on 21.4.2015 at 1145KM reading for second free service which was done and at that time also complainant did not report about any problem in the functioning of motorcycle. Thereafter, complainant visited the service station of OP No.1 on 27.6.2015 at 2631KM reading for minor repairs which were done within warranty without charging any amount from the complainant and the motorcycle of the complainant was repaired and handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction. Thereafter, complainant visited the service station of OP No.1 on 11.7.2015 at 2930KM reading and as per job sheet Ex.OP5 for repair within warranty and the motorcycle of the complainant was repaired without charging any amount from the complainant. Thereafter, complainant never approached the OP No.1 with any complaint in the functioning of the motorcycle of the complainant. However, he made complaint to OP No.2 through email dated 18.7.2015 Ex.C4. Resultantly, OP No.1 issued letter dated 21.7.2015 Ex.OP3 through registered post requesting the complainant to bring his motorcycle at their service station on any working day between 10.00 AM to 4.00 PM for necessary service/repairs etc, but the complainant did not turn-up. Thereafter, he served legal notice dated 23.9.2015 Ex.C5 upon the OPs which was duly replied by OPs vide reply dated 7.10.2015 Ex.OP10. All this shows that whenever complainant approached the OP with any problem/complaint regarding the functioning of the motorcycle in question that was rectified without charging any amount from the complainant as the motorcycle was within warranty period and the motorcycle was returned to the complainant after repair to the satisfaction of the complainant. So, this Forum is of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant. The complainant also tendered affidavit of one Jagjeet Singh, Mechanic Ex.CW2/A who stated that he checked the motorcycle in question and found some inherent problem in the engine which was giving sound problem which is a manufacturing defect and can not be rectified but this witness did not depose as to on which date, month or year, he checked the motorcycle of the complainant and what was the defect which can be declared inherent and not repairable. Moreover, this witness does not possess any diploma or degree in Auto Mobile Engineering nor he has produced any experience certificate. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case Khanna Automobiles & Anr Vs, Rajesh Kumar 2013(3) CPC 76 that the report of the expert produced to prove manufacturing defect is not convincing for the reason that no certificate was produced to prove that expert had requisite expertise in this matter. The vehicle was found in running condition till date and its replacement is not justified and the impugned order of replacement was set-aside.

9. Whereas the OPs have also filed affidavit of Mandep Singh, Works Manager Ex.OP/B who deposed that whenever the motorcycle in question was brought by complainant for any repair, the same was repaired under his supervision in the service station of OP No.1. The motorcycle in question is in running condition as it had run upto 2930KM within a period of less than six months. Its service history Ex.OP4 fully proves that the vehicle in question is in running condition and whenever it was brought to the service station, it was repaired and necessary services were done without charging any amount from the complainant and the same was made fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. This witness also proved his qualification that he has done diploma in Automobile Engineering Ex.OP/B/2. He has obtained training from Bajaj Auto Ltd., Waluj, Aurangabad and training certificate in this regard is Ex.OP/B/1.

10. So all this shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. However, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant that if there is any defect or problem in the functioning of the motorcycle of the complainant, he shall produce the motorcycle at the service station of OP No.1 within one week from the date of receipt of copy of order and the OPs are directed to repair and rectify the problem, if any, in the motorcycle without charging any amount as the motorcycle is within warranty period and make the same with fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the motorcycle in the service station. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

10.08.2016 Member President