PER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 25.12.2009 had purchased a motor bike from OP-3 for Rs.45,950/-, which started giving problems in its gears from the second day of its purchase.  The bike was taken to the OP-3 for its repair but they could not repair it and it was informed to him that there was a manufacturing defect in the bike.  Thereafter they requested the OPs for replacement of the defective bike with a new one as there was a technical and manufacturing defect in the said bike but the OPs refused his legitimate claim. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs.  In their written reply the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of a qualified mechanical/automobile engineer to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. The said vehicle was brought to OP-3 on 19.1.2010 for first service but no problem of gear was reported by the complainant. On 23.1.2010, the complainant brought the motorcycle to OP-3 with a problem of gear and when the OP-3 made efforts to rectify the defect, the complainant refused and took the vehicle back on the same day and sought replacement of the motorcycle. The complainant again visited OP-3 on 14.2.2010, with the problem of gear and the same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had filed the present complaint before this Forum The matter was also taken up before Lok Adalat on 12.05.2010, wherein the father of the complainant informed the Court that the vehicle has been repaired successfully, however, he needed time to verify the correctness of the repair.  Thereafter the complainant again visited OP-3 on 9.05.2010 and did not report any problem with regard to the gears of the motorcycle in question instead of some other minor problems which were duly rectified by OP-3. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.             The main grouse of the complainant is that the above said motorcycle started giving problem in its gears and handle from the second day of its purchase due to some manufacturing defect. During that period it was under warranty but despite repeated efforts the OPs could not repair it and also refused to replace the defective motorcycle with a new one. In support of his contentions, he has placed on record Annexure-A, the copy of the retail invoice dated 25.12.2009, which shows that he had paid a sum of Rs.45,950/- to OP-3 towards purchase of the said motorcycle. Annexure-B dated 19.01.2010 is the copy of the cash/credit memo which shows that the vehicle was taken to the OPs for first free service and it was again taken on 16.02.2010 to vide Annexure now marked `C`, for oil change and minor service, wherein some  gaskets, packing etc. were changed.

6.             On the other hand the OPs contended that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of a qualified mechanical/automobile engineer to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. When the complainant reported the problem in the gear, it was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter he did not report any problem with regard to the gears of the motorcycle in question instead of some other minor problems which were duly rectified by them. In support of their contentions, they have placed on record Annexure R-1, dated 19.01.2010, the copy of the cash/credit memo which shows that the vehicle was brought to them by the complainant for first free service, where after it was again brought to them on 23.01.2010 vide Annexure R-2 and 14.02.2010 vide Annexure R-3 with a problem of gear shift, neutral and front wheel bubbling. After that the vehicle was brought to them on 9.05.2010 vide Annexure R-4 only with a problem of front wheel bubbling and no such problem of gear was reported on that date.

7.             The grouse of the complainant that the gears of the motorcycle did not work properly from the second day of its purchase cannot be accepted as correct because Annexure R-1 which the copy of the job card clearly shows that the vehicle was first taken to the OPs on 19.01.2010 for first free service after covering a distance of 918 kms and on that date no such defect of gears/neutral was ever reported by the complainant to the OPs. It was reported only on 23.01.2010, but admittedly and as is clear from the remarks made by the complainant himself on the job card Annexure R-2, he did not allow the OPs to rectify the said defect and sought replacement of the motorcycle with a new one and took his motorcycle back without getting it repaired and thereafter he again visited the OPs on 14.02.2010, when the said motorcycle had covered a distance of 1846 kms and on that date the said defects were checked and rectified by the OPs.  On 9.05.2010, when he visited the OPs vide Annexure R-4, no such defect of gear/neutral was reported by the complainant, which clearly shows that the alleged defect of the gears/neutral was rectified by the OP on 14.02.2010 vide Annexure R-3, when the OPs were allowed by the complainant to repair it. Otherwise also, when the vehicle was brought to the OPs on 9.05.2010, the reading of odometer mentioned against the column Km. Covered was 4761kms, which shows that it was regularly driven/used by the complainant. Had there been any gear/neutral or wheel bubbling problem, the complainant would not have been able to drive it for 4761 kms in just about four months after its purchase. Perusal of the record clearly shows that, as and when the motorcycle was taken to the OPs for any defect, the defect was fully rectified by the OPs, keeping in mind the warranty terms and conditions.  Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the complainant that now he is unable to ride the motorcycle or the said defect of gear/neutral or wheel bubbling arose from the second day of its purchase.

8.             Otherwise also, the complainant has not been able to produce any expert opinion of engineer/mechanic of any workshop/dealer to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the engine of the motorcycle or it was beyond repair. Therefore, in the absence of any strict proof against the OPs, we cannot hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

               Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.