Punjab

Sangrur

CC/942/2015

Sourav Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Rohit Jain

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                           

                                                Complaint No.  942

                                                Instituted on:    01.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.07.2016

 

Sourav Bansal son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Shiva Motors  through its Proprietor/partner, authorised dealer LML Limited, Near Telephone Exchange Sangrur.

2.             LML Limited, through its Managing Director, Kanpur (UP).

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sourav Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a new scooter Star Euro 150 Automatic from OP number 1 on 8.9.2014 for Rs.54,000/- vide retail invoice number 1662 dated 8.9.2014 and also paid an amount of Rs.8000/- towards registration charges and thereafter the registration number PB-13-AM-6640 was allotted to the complainant and the scooter in question was also having two years of warranty/guarantee for any of the defects in the scooter. It is further averred that the complainant followed all the instructions of OPs in maintaining/operating the scooter.  It is further averred that after purchase of 20 days of the scooter, it started to give problem and after checking the mechanic of the OP told that the battery fitted therein is not taking the load, so the battery is required to be replaced with high power battery known as power zone battery and asked the complainant to purchase a new battery from the market to place it in the scooter. As such, the complainant requested the OP that the scooter is in warranty, but the owner of the OP number 1 told that there is no warranty of the battery. As such, the complainant purchased one power zone battery from M/s. Prince Electricals, Gas Agency Road, Dhuri vide invoice number 571 dated 4.10.2014 for Rs.1500/- and got fitted the same, but the problem was still there.  It is further averred that the second service of the scooter was done on 27.12.2014 and apprised the OP number 1 about the same problem again, but all in vain.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2 on its customer care number in the month of January, 2015, who assured that their engineer will come in the month of March, 2015 and the problem in the scooter will be removed, but their engineer never came nor the complainant was ever called. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the defective parts of the scooter with new one or to refund the purchase price of the scooter and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, the purchase of the scooter in question is admitted. It is denied that the complainant ever approached the OP number 1 after 20 days of its purchase.  It is stated that the complainant never apprised about any problem in the scooter on first and second service. However, it is stated that the scooter of the complainant was picked up from Dhuri from his house and the same was delivered at Dhuri at his home, but the father of the complainant did not sign the job sheet, as his son was not at home and is out of house for tuition. Thereafter the complainant got the service of the scooter again, but such problem was never brought to the notice of the OPs. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of invoice, Ex.C-2 copy of delivery challan, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-4 copy of RC, Ex.C-5 copy of invoice, Ex.C-6 copy of warranty card of battery, Ex.C-7 copy of job card, Ex.C-8 copy of survey report, Ex.C-10 copy of license of surveyor, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 affidavits, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-20 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of job card, Ex.OP-2 copy of job card dated 27.12.2014, Ex.OP-3 copy of job card dated 29.1.2015, Ex.OP-4 copy of job card dated 26.2.2015, Ex.OP-5 copy of customer contact report, Ex.OP-6 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the scooter in question for Rs.54,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the scooter in question and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 2.  It is further an admitted fact that the scooter in question was having a warranty/guarantee of two years from the very date of its purchase, as is evident from the document Ex.C-8.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though the scooter was having starting problem and as such he approached OP number 1 for redressal of the grievance and the OP number 1 after checking the scooter told that there is battery problem, as such the complainant was compelled to purchase a new high power battery from M/s. Prince Electricals, Dhuri, as is evident from the copy of the bill dated 4.10.2014 for Rs.1500/-.   But, the OP has totally denied that the complainant ever apprised any problem in the scooter. Further to support the contention, the complainant has produced the expert report of Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, Ex.C-9 and his affidavit Ex.C-12, who checked the scooter on 16.4.2016, when its reading was 3764.8 KM and found that there was self starting problem in the scooter and he even tried to start the scooter with kick, but the kick was also malfunctioning, sometimes it works and some times it was not working, as such, he has stated that there are problems in the spark plug, current coil, self, regulator, fuel system and might be the engine problem.  On the other hand, the OPs have not produced any iota of evidence to say that the scooter is not suffering from any such problems, more so when the OPs never tried to even check the scooter nor made any offer before this forum to check the scooter at their own and to make in fully working condition, as the complainant has spent huge amount of Rs.62,000/- on its purchase. Further it is worth mentioning here that the scooter in question was under warranty/guarantee for two years or a run of 30,000 KMs whichever is earlier from the date of its purchase, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-8.  As such, we feel that the scooter in question suffered defects within its warranty period.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in not properly repairing the scooter during the warranty/guarantee period of two years. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP number 1  to check the scooter in question and make it in fully working condition by replacing any of the parts of the scooter in question free of cost.  The OP number 1 shall further pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. However, it is open for the OP number 1 to recover the cost of parts of the scooter from OP number 2, if so desired.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 14, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member