DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:1477 of 2009 Date of Inst: 07.12.2009 Gautam Sehgal s/o Sh.J.N.Sehgal r/o House No.2110/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Partap Auto (I) Pvt. Ltd., Workshop Plot No.182/83, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Manger/Representative. 2. Bajaj Auto Limited, Regd. Office, Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411035. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. Sh.Vaneesh Khanna, Adv. for OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Gautam Sehgal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Replace the engine of the vehicle by new one. ii) Pay compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 14.11.2003, he purchased motorcycle (Bajaj Caliber) from M/s Hind Motors, Chandigarh. In May, 2008, the complainant faced some problems in the engine of the motorcycle. Therefore, he approached OP-1 who prepared an estimate for Rs.6000/- for the repair of the engine. The complainant delivered the vehicle to OP-1 on 26.05.2008. The same was returned after repairs to the complainant on 28.05.2008. Thereafter, the complainant had to again approach OP-1 on 22.06.2008 as the engine was still giving problems. It has been asserted by the complainant that he visited OP-1 14 times with the complaint that the engine was not functioning properly after repairs but OP-1 refused to repair the vehicle. According to the complainant, OP-1 demanded money for carrying out the repairs for which OP-1 had already charged from him. Consequently, he wrote e-mail to this effect to OP-2 who assured for its best services but nothing was done. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP-1, it has been pleaded that the complainant purchased the vehicle in 2003 and the warranty was for a period of 2 years or 4000 kms whichever is earlier. According to OP-1, after getting engine repaired (in the year 2008), the complainant used the vehicle in question extensively. He has run the vehicle for about 50000 kms within the period of 18 months which clearly shows that there is no defect in the engine. It has further been pleaded that after getting the engine repaired, the complainant never got his vehicle serviced from OP-1. As per the service manual of the Company, the service should be done at every 2500 kms or 75 days whichever is earlier. It has further been pleaded that as and when the complainant approached OP-1, as a goodwill gesture it used to fill the engine oil and carry out the minor repairs without charging any money except for replacement of parts and in all, OP-1 charged a sum of Rs.561/- from the complainant during the period of 18 months. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied by OP-1. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In its written statement, OP-2 took almost identical grounds as taken by OP-1. According to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal qua it. 5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Admittedly, the motorcycle was purchased by the complainant in the year 2003. It had warranty for 24 months. In the year, 2008 the complainant got the engine of the motorcycle repaired. It was argued by the complainant that OP had not repaired the engine properly. So it developed defects soon after its repairs. This argument of the complainant has no force. Admittedly, the motorcycle has covered a distance of more than 50000 kms. If the engine of the motorcycle had not been repaired properly, the same could not have covered such a long distance within a period of 18 months. So there is no force in the argument advanced by the complainant. 7. Faced with this situation, it has been argued by the complainant that the vehicle started consuming more engine oil which shows that the engine is defective. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant has failed to get the vehicle serviced as per the service manual of the company. Even otherwise also, the complainant has failed to place on record any document in the form of job sheet etc. which shows that he got the vehicle serviced as per the service manual of the company. So the consumption of the more engine oil is on account of the failure of the complainant to get the motorcycle serviced as per the norms given in the service manual. So the defect, if any, in the motorcycle is on account of lapses on the part of the complainant himself. 8. In view of the above findings, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 16.07.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1477 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 14.08.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 16.07.2010 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
