Haryana

Ambala

CC/52/2017

Harish Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s LML Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Malik

07 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No.  : 52 of 2017

        Date of Institution    : 16.02.2017

            Date of Decision      : 07.05.2018

 

Harish Chander son of Sh.Gurandiwya Mal Bindra, r/o H.No.57-A Near Lal Diwara Mandir, Kanchghar, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. M/s LML Limited, C-10, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur- 208022, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Singla Autos, Near Vita Milk Plank, G.T.Road, Ambala City.

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

           

Present:          Sh. Rajesh Malik, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. S.K.Makan, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased a LML Scooter bearing Engine No.E16F3153476 chasis No.MD711EABMF3625030 Model 2015 from OP No.2 vide invoice No.364 dated 23.08.2015 manufactured by OP No.1 but from the very beginning there was noise in the engine. The complainant visited the OP No.2 but it stated that the noise would go after first service which was got done on 19.09.2015 but the noise was still coming. Thereafter the complainant again took the scooter to Op No.2 for second service but the mechanic opened the engine and replaced the same with assurance that no noise would come in future but when the noise did not stop the complainant again visited Op No.2 which disclosed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the month of January, 2016 the complainant took the scooter to the workshop of Op No.2 for third service but it refused to do so on the ground that the dealership has been terminated and asked the complainant to get the service from some other dealer. Finding no alternative, the complainant got third service done from private mechanic. On 01.08.2016 when the complainant was going to Ambala Cantt. at about 6 P.M. the scooter got jammed suddenly and the complainant managed to save himself and thereafter took the scooter to his house in an Auto. Since there was no dealer, therefore, the complainant took the scooter to Khanna Auto Parts and got repaired the same by spending a sum of Rs.7400/-. Till today the vehicle is not running properly due to manufacturing defect in it. The complainant requested the OPs either to replace the scooter or to refund the cost thereof and further got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CA, Annexure CB and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

2.                     On notice, Ops appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being filed by suppressing of material facts and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. The OP No.1 is a company of repute and each and every part of the vehicle is inspected/ tested before delivery of the same to the agencies. As per record the complainant got second service on 25.11.2015 at 2500 Km running vide second service coupon No.SA577208  wherein the customer had certified that I have received the above said scooter after the service having been carried out to my satisfaction on 25.11.2015 at  kms 2500. If the complainant had any grievance he could not sign the coupon to his entire satisfaction. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no expert opinion on the file certifying that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                        Op No.2 in its reply has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1. It has been submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle  as no expert opinion is on the file. The Op No.1 had to stop the production for some unforeseen reasons and company had shut down its production since September, 2015 and the agency of the Op No.1 was terminated orally. The Op No.2 has switched over to other business of CEAT tyres by the same name and style M/s Singla Autos. The seizure of the engine of the scooter might be due to negligence of the complainant.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

3.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                     Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased a LML Scooter bearing Engine No.E16F3153476 chasis No.MD711EABMF3625030 Model 2015 from OP No.2 vide invoice No.364 dated 23.08.2015 (Annexure C10) manufactured by OP No.1. First free service of the vehicle was done on 19.09.2015 vide Annexure C1 and second free service was done on 25.11.2015 (Annexure C2).  The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle was giving trouble such as noise in the engine from the very beginning but the OPs did not redress his grievance and even on 01.08.016 the vehicle got jammed and when it was not in a position to ply, therefore, it was got repaired from Khanna Auto Parts vide Annexure C12 & Annexure C13 as the OP No.2 had refused to repair the same. Since the vehicle was not working properly, therefore, the complainant requested the OPs either to replace the same or to refund the cost thereof as the vehicle was having manufacturing defect but to no effect.

                        On the other hand the OPs have come with the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and during second free service the complainant had certified that I have received the above said scooter after the service having been carried out to my satisfaction on 25.11.2015 at  kms 2500.  

5.                     The service centre/ manufacturer are duty bound to provide after sale service but in the present case it appears that the Ops have violated the provisions of Consumer Protection Act by not providing service after selling the vehicle as the complainant kept on making complaint regarding noise in the engine. It is strange that the engine of the vehicle got jammed within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance, therefore, under completing circumstances the complainant had to get the same repaired from private mechanic. In para No.4 of the reply the Op No.1 has mentioned that for some unforeseen reasons the company had to stop production and company had shut down its production since September, 2015.  The Op No.2 in para No.4 of the reply has mentioned that the agency of the Op No.2 has been terminated orally by Op No.1 as there was no production by OP No.1 since September 2015, till date. The Op No.2 has switch over to other business of CEAT Tyres by the same name & style i.e. M/s Singla Autos.  In the present case the manufacturer has shut down the production of the product and the agency of the dealer has been terminated but despite that the OPs cannot be set free from the responsibility of providing after sale service to the complainant. It was the duty of the service centre to get the vehicle trouble free after repairs but in the present case it appears that the vehicle continued to give problems which show that the vehicle was of sub-standard quality and has failed to fulfill the purpose for which the complainant had purchased the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the service centre and manufacturer are not supposed to earn profit from the customers and they cannot be permitted to defeat the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act because after sale of the product it remains their duty to redress the grievance of the customer but in the present case the Ops have failed to do so.  Due to not providing of proper service to the complainant by the OPs he had to face mental agony, harassment  besides financial loss as he had to get the vehicle repaired from private agency despite the fact that it was under warranty.

6.                                 Keeping in view the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant has suffered a lot on account of non-performance of the vehicle as per his expectations and the OPs have failed to redress his grievance. Moreover, the production of the vehicle in question has already been stopped, therefore, this Forum has no option but to order to refund the cost of the vehicle instead of replacement of the vehicle. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed as under:

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 48,000/- (being cost of the vehicle as mentioned in Annexure C10 Invoice) to the  complainant subject to returning of vehicle to the Op No.1 by the complainant within 15 days and after that to complete the formalities in getting the vehicle transferred in the name of either Op No.1 or its representative.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.3950/- spent by the complainant on the repairing of the vehicle of the vehicle (Annexure C12/Annexure C13)
3. To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, sufferings and cost of litigation

 

Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month after returning the vehicle to the complainant to OP No.1 failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 07.05.2018                                                           

                                                                                                   

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                          PRESIDENT