Delhi

North East

CC/11/2016

Arun Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiva Motors - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 11/16

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Brahm Dutt Sharma, R/O C-256, Gali No. 9 Hardev  Puri, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1         2.       3.	M/S Shiva Motors, Authorized Dealer of Yamaha E-11, 100 Ft. Road, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi 110094 India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., A-3 Suraj Pur Indul. Area, Dadri Road, Suraj Pur, Noida U.P 201306 Exide Industries Limited, A-3 Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

11.01.2016 02.08.2022 15.11.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

 

[

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a Motorcycle make Yamaha R-15 Ltd. Black/golden SMX, vide Engine GEC7E00 26765, chasis No. MEIRGO61BE0026884, Reg No. DL5S AP 3030 for a sum of Rs. 1,26,216/- vide invoice no. 12115 dated 01.01.2015. He purchased the said bike from M/s Shiva Motors i.e Opposite Party No. 1 and it was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2. In the month of November 2015 the battery of the bike started troubles in starting the bike. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party no. 1 as the said bike was under warranty period. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 suggested the Complainant to approach Exide Service Centre as the battery was of Exide. Then the Complainant went there and they gave some remarks i.e. Battery is out of warranty from Mfg. Code, the battery was manufactures in 7A4, Battery was out of warranty from the date of sale i.e 01.01.2015 and the vehicle was already covered the requisite mileage for which the battery 0000009626, after that Exide Service Centre suggested the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No. 1 in order to change the said battery as the said vehicle was under warranty. Then the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for the redress of his grievances but Opposite Party No. 1 flatly refused for the same. The Complainant visited time and again before the Opposite Party No. 1 but all in vain. Then the Complainant had to purchase a new battery in the month of December, 2015 as the bike was not being used due to battery problem. Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 14.12.2015 through his counsel to ask the Opposite Parties requiring them to change the battery of the said bike of the Complainant but all in vain. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to give the new battery to the Complainant of the said bike or pay the amount of the said battery which has already purchased by the Complainant along with the interest @ 24 % p.a from filing the present complaint till its realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- be passed in favour of the Complainant towards the mental torture, harassment, pain and agony.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No-1 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party No- 1that the Complainant was well aware that the battery fitted in the motor cycle manufactured by Exide Industries Ltd. and if any fault came in the battery then the Opposite Party No. 2 would be responsible for the same and if the battery would be guaranty warranty period and for any fault of battery the Opposite Party No. 1 would not be responsible. It is denied that the Complainant is vulnerable customer who suffered at the hands of unreasonable and arbitrary policies of the Opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that when the complainant came to the Opposite Party No. 1 then the officials of Opposite Party No. 1 tried to make him understand that they are not responsible for the same because neither they are manufacturer of Exide Battery nor they gave any warranty and guaranty for the battery. It is submitted that Opposite Party No 1 is not responsible for any fault in battery. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No-2 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party No- 2 that the Complainant purchased a Yamaha R-15 motorcycle on 15.01.2015 from the Opposite Party No. 1. The said motorcycle was delivered to the Complainant after completing the process of P.D.I (i.e Pre Delivery Inspection) to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. Opposite Party No. 2 does not sell its motorcycles to any individual customer and Opposite Party No. 2 sells the motorcycles to its dealers only. The Dealer Sales Agreement entered into between the Opposite Party No. 2 and its dealers governs the relationship between the Company and its dealers. The said agreement stipulates the relationship between the two on principal-to-principal basis. It is further stated that Opposite party No. 2 cannot be burdened with or held liable for any representation/s or action/s or act/s or omissions, if any, on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2 or any other third party other than the Opposite party No. 2. It is stated that Complainant had got his motorcycles serviced from some M/s Prime Auto on 06.01.2016 which entity is not known to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 cannot be held liable for the acts of any third Party. It is submitted that Opposite Party provides a warranty of two years or 30,000 km of operation whichever is earlier from the date of purchase to the original purchaser only. Opposite Party strictly lies in accordance with the terms and condition of the warranty extended by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. As per the terms of the warranty, the same is extended only to the certain parts that may be found to have a manufacturing defect and not the complete motorcycle. It is also stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 does not provide any warranty on tyres/wheel, battery, spark plug, helmet, chain etc. Further it is submitted that the battery of the motorcycle is consumable item and the warranty of the Opposite Party No. 2 is not extended to battery of the motorcycle. It is submitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 on 27.11.2015 for accidental damages, wherein the complainant was informed that accidental repairs are not covered under warranty. The complainant approached the Opposite party No. 1 for the first time on 08.12.2015 with the complaint of starting issue in the motorcycle. The service engineer of the Opposite Party No. 1 inspected the motorcycle and diagnosed the problem to be that of battery getting discharged when the motorcycle was not in the running mode. Since the battery is not covered under the terms of warranty as provided by the Opposite party No. 2, the service engineer of the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the complainant that the battery is of Exide and advised the complainant to approach the nearest Exide dealer. Then the Exide dealer found that the issue of the starting problem existed but the battery could not be changed for free since the battery was out of warranty. It is further submitted that Opposite Party has not liability towards the battery of the motorcycle and the same is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the battery i.e Exide. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the non-joinder of the battery manufacturer and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3. Hence, Opposite Party No. 3 has proceeded against Ex- parte vide order dated 01.08.2016.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

7.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 filed affidavit of Shri

Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. M.R Gupta, Manager Shiva Motors, at E-11 Main 100 Foota Road, west Jyoti Nagar, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party-1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

8.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Sh. Nikhil Gour, A-3 Surajpur Industrial Area, Dadri Road, Surajpur, Noida, presently at New Delhi, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party-2 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and the Counsels for Opposite Party No. 1 & 2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
10.  It is admitted that he Complainant had purchased a motorcycle make Yamaha from Opposite Party No. 1 on 01.01.2015. It is admitted that the battery of the said motorcycle was not working properly. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that they are not liable for any defect or fault in the battery and for the defect if any, the manufacturer of the battery i.e Exide Industries Ltd. is liable. In this case, the Opposite Party No. 3 i.e Exide Industries Ltd. did not contest the case and thus they have not put forward any defense. Therefore from the material on record, it is proved that the battery of the motorcycle of the Complainant stopped working properly within the guaranty/warranty period. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Exide Industries Ltd. is held liable for the defect of the battery of the motorcycle of the Complainant. The Complainant has stated in his affidavit that he had to purchase a new battery in the month of December 2015 but he has not placed on any receipt on record. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 3 shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a from the

date of filing the complaint till its recovery.

11. Order announced on 15.11.2022.

           Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President