DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 685/2016
Date of Institution : 5.12.2016
Date of Decision : 23.02.2018
Jyoti Rani d/o Satish Kumar resident of House No. B-XI/2127, Street No. 3, Near Chintu Park, Barnala-148101, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Suzuki Motorcycle India Limited, Village Kherki Dhaula, Badshahapur, NH-8, Link Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Rising Motors Private Limited, Dashmesh Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory; (Mobile No. 094632-79900) now at Rakesh Kumar Jain c/o Liberty Showroom, Bus Stand Road, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur (Mobile No. 94170-21900; 94632-79900) (email id: 3. Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, 5024/4, 1st Floor, Sobti Complex, Division No. 3, Opp. Bank of Baroda, Near Baba Than Singh Chowk, Harbans Pura, Ludhiana.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Deepak Rai Jindal counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh for opposite party No. 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT)
The complainant namely Jyoti Rani has filed the present complaint against M/s Suzuki Motorcycle India Limited and others (hereinafter called the opposite parties). It is alleged that complainant is a student and for going to the college she wanted to purchase a vehicle for which she visited opposite party No. 2. The representative of opposite party No. 2 allured the complainant for the purchase of Suzuki Access and assured for providing the best quality and service of the said vehicle. The complainant purchased one vehicle model Suzuki India-Suzuki Access UZ 125 bearing Frame No. 8319721 and Engine No. 2503742 manufactured by opposite party No. 1 on 2.12.2015 from the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. 177 dated 2.12.2015 by paying an amount of Rs. 50,875/-. The said vehicle was got financed through Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, which was got arranged by opposite party No. 2.
2. It is further alleged that on 2.1.2016 the complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2 for getting service of the said vehicle, but on the said date the complainant was told that there is no service engineer/mechanic in the service centre and further told to visit after 1.2.2016. The complainant against visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 3.2.2016 and got service her vehicle. After few days the complainant notice a crack in the body/frame of the said vehicle and visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2 and showed them the crack. On this the complainant was told by opposite party No. 2 that they have noted the complaint and assured him that they will change the body/frame of the said vehicle. On 18.4.2016 the complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2 for the next due service and to get changed the body/frame of the vehicle. But the complainant was refused for providing service and further asked to call to the Head Office of the company. Thereafter, the complainant made many requests/call to the Head Office and every time the complainant was given assurance regarding the service of her vehicle and for the change of body/frame of the vehicle, but till date no service has been provided to her. The complainant is not able to use her said vehicle and the same is still lying at her residence. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking following reliefs:-
To replace the old vehicle with a new one or to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 1.5% per month till realization.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the ground that complaint is false and fabricated. It is further submitted in preliminary objections that the opposite party No. 1 is not liable for the act of dealers as the dealership is a separate legal entity etc. On merits, it is submitted that the quality check of manufacturing of two wheeler vehicle is done at four stages of thorough testing. On 4.1.2017 the service engineer of opposite party No. 1 and a representative of Sangrur dealer had a meeting with complainant and they had inspected the vehicle and found that the vehicle had suffered damage due to some sort of impact/accident which had cracked the front fender & front shield. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 1 as a good gesture offered repair the said vehicle free of cost, but the complainant did not agree to the same and has filed the present complaint. It is also submitted that the vehicle cannot be replaced as the vehicle doesn't have any manufacturing defect as the warranty of the vehicle has also been lapsed. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 2 appeared and also filed a separate written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of material facts, jurisdiction, no locus-standi etc. On merits, it is denied that on 2.1.2016 the complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2. It is submitted that on 2.1.2016 the service engineer/mechanic was available in the service centre and made services of many vehicles vide Service Coupons No. 138549, 113218 dated 2.1.2016 etc. It is further submitted that business of opposite party No. 2 has been ceased. The complainant did not come to the opposite party No. 2 on 18.4.2016 as the business of opposite party No. 2 was ceased on 30.3.2016, therefore the question of the complainant for coming to opposite party No. 2 on 18.4.2016 for getting service does not arise at all. All other allegations of the complaint are dined and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Notice was sent to opposite party No. 3 but no one has come present on their behalf and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.1.2017.
6. To prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of invoice Ex.C-1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, copy of service coupon Ex.C-4, her affidavit Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Divakar Jangid Ex.O.P-1/1, copy of letter of resolution Ex.O.P-1/2, copies of photographs of vehicle Ex.O.P-1/3 to Ex.O.P-1/5 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
9. The dispute is to decide in the present complaint is that whether the crack in the body/frame of vehicle is manufacturing defect or any other defect.
10. The complainant has stated that she has purchased the vehicle model Suzuki India-Suzuki Access UZ 125 bearing Frame No. 8319721 and Engine No. 2503742 on 2.12.2015 and gone to opposite party No. 2 for getting service of vehicle, but opposite party No. 2 told that no service engineer/mechanic is available and told to visit after 1.2.2016 and again the complainant has gone on 3.2.2016 for service of the said vehicle and the same was got service. Few days after the service, the complainant noticed a crack in the body/frame of the vehicle and again visited the service centre and the opposite party No. 2 stated that they will arrange and to change the body/frame of the said vehicle and again on 18.4.2016 the complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No. 2, but the opposite party No. 2 refused to provide service.
11. The opposite party No. 2 has argued that service centre was ceased on 30.3.2016 that question come to service centre by the complainant on 18.4.2016 and refused to service the vehicle cannot arise.
12. The opposite party No. 1 has stated that the opposite party No. 1 has come to know regarding the grievance of complainant on receiving summons alongwith copy of complaint and the opposite party No. 1 offered the complainant to get her vehicle repaired from their new dealer and had offered doorstep service to the complainant through their dealer in Sangrur, till the appointment of authorized service centre in Barnala by opposite party No. 1, but the complainant refused the same and demanded replacement of vehicle with new one. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 stated that the warranty of the vehicle has been lapsed and moreover the vehicle does not have any manufacturing defect. So, the opposite party No. 1 cannot replace the vehicle.
13. The onus to prove whether the vehicle has manufacturing defect is on the complainant. But the complainant has not produced any evidence regarding the crack in the body/frame of the vehicle and the complainant has only produced the copy of invoice, copy of registration certificate, copy of policy, copy of service coupon and her affidavit. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion of any mechanic of motorcycle or automobiles engineer, which can be proved that there is crack in the body/frame of the vehicle and the same is due to manufacturing defect or due to any other reason. Moreover, the complainant has not stated in her complaint and affidavit that on which date she noticed that there is a crack in the body/frame of the vehicle and neither it has been stated that when she has approached the opposite party No. 2 to show the crack. The complainant has written three dates in her complaint i.e. 2.1.2016, 3.2.2016 and 18.4.2016 for getting service of vehicle. But she has not mentioned the date and month when she noticed the crack in the body/frame of the vehicle. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 offered to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from their dealer in Sangrur (S.K. Auto), but the complainant failed to do so. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence, which can be proved whether there is any crack in the body/frame of the vehicle and whether it has been due to the manufacturing defect or any other reason.
14. So, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
