Delhi

North

CC/114/2018

VIJENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. GLOBUS MOTORS(P) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.114/2018

In the matter of

Sh.Vijender Kumar

S/o Sh.Shish Pal

R/o H.No.278, Gali No.5

New Balmiki Mandi

Village Wazirabad

Delhi-110084                                                                      …Complainant

 

Versus

M/s.Globus Motors (P) Ltd

Regd. Off: A-22, Gujrawala Town

Part-I, Main GTK Road

New Delhi-110009                                                               ...Opposite Party

ORDER
06/04/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Sh.Vijender Kumar, the Complainant against M/s. Globus Honda (P) Ltd. as OP, with the prayer for directions to OP to replace the vehicle with new one; or refund the cost of the vehicle with interest; pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical and financial harassment and litigation expenses. .

1.      Facts as per the complaint are, on 11/11/2016, the complainant purchased a Honda Motor cycle, Model: CB-Shine bearing registration No.DL-8SBZ-4264, chassis NO.ME4JC652KG7221613 and Engine No.JC65E70705408 for Rs.66,200/- from OP. 

2.      It has been alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning there were some technical issues in the engine for which the OP was duly informed at the time of service.  The vehicle was serviced on 11/12/2016, 07/03/2017 and 15/07/2017.  Despite the fact that, the vehicle was covered under 02 year’s standard warranty, the complainant was forced to pay for the services.

3.      The complainant has stated that there was heating problem which was not rectified despite number of complaint and requests. On 14/09/2017, OP advised complainant to bind the engine and charged Rs.1,576/- but issued a receipt of Rs.860/. Again, on 09/12/2017, the complainant was charged Rs.1,356/- for service and job work and on 18/01/2018, the complainant paid Rs.988/- . On 26/02/2018, again the complainant was charged on account of engine oil.

4.      It has been further alleged by the complainant that the vehicle was defective and his request for replacement was ignored on one pretext or the other. On 22/05/2018, the complainant was given an estimate of Rs.1,000/- or more for the service. 

5. Despite several requests, the OP neither replaced the defective vehicle nor refunded the cost.  The defective vehicle use to stop at any time on the road which could have led to serious mis-happening with the complainant/driver of the vehicle.  
6. Copy of vehicle registration certificate, copy of delivery Challan, copy of receipt of registration of motorcycle with transport department,   copy of proof of services of the vehicle (colly), copy of tax invoice (colly), copy of Aadhaar Card of the complainant have been annexed with the complaint
7. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP.  However none appeared despite service and no written statement was filed on their behalf.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18/09/2018. 
8. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint.  He has got exhibited  the copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.CW-1/1, the copy of receipt of price of motorcycle dated 11/11/2016 as Ex.CW1/2 (colly), copy of delivery challan issued by OP as Ex.CW1/3, copy of receipt of registration of motorcycle with transport department as Ex.CW1/4, copy of vehicle registration certificate as Ex.CW1/5, copy of proof of services of the vehicle as Ex.CW-1/6 (Colly), copy of tax invoice as Ex.CW-1/7, (colly).
9. We have heard the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. First and foremost, the complainant has alleged defects in the vehicle right from the initial days of purchase. The manufacturer has not been impleaded as a party. The OP herein is the seller of the vehicle in dispute.
10. The retail invoices filed by the complainant are being reproduced hereunder in a tabular form:

S.No.	Date	Retail Invoice No.	Kind of service	Kms.
	11/12/2016	SERVINV-DL01BB05-1617-05209	Free 01	795
	07/03/2017	SERVINV-DL01BB05-1617-07161	Free 02	3487
	15/07/2017	DL01BB0517002316	Free 03	7469
	14/09/2017	DL01BB0517004127	General Repairs	9117
	28/09/2017	DL01BB0517004560	General Repairs	9691
	09/12/2017	DL01BB0517006750	General Repairs	11897
	18.01.2018	SERVINV-DL010005-1718-020244	General Repairs	13092
	26/02/2018	SERVINV-DL010005-1718-022792	Paid	13934

 

11. It is seen that the first three services are the free services from 11/12/2016 to 15/07/2016. As per general practice the customer has to pay for the engine oil and consumables. The receipts annexed with the complaint also reflect the same that the complainant was charged for Engine Oil and Consumables. Thus, the allegation that despite the fact that the vehicle was under warranty, the complainant was asked to pay does not hold ground.
12. The complainant in para 3. of the complaint has stated that from the very beginning of the purchase of the said vehicle, there were some technical problems in the engine due to heating, same is not substantiated by any of the documents filed by the complainant. However, change of engine oil in a span of 15 days as seen from retail invoice dated 14/09/2017 and 28/09/2017 after running the vehicle for 574 kms cannot be ignored.
13. It cannot be ascertained from the documents on record that acts/omissions on part of the OP have resulted in defect in the vehicle. The complainant has sought prayer for replacement or in alternative refund of the cost of the vehicle, the said prayer cannot be granted qua OP (the seller) herein.
14.  It is settled principle of Law that complainant has prove his own case. The complainant has failed to establish that there is any deficiency in services on part of OP. 
15.  As the complainant has alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle, same cannot be decided in the absence of manufacturer. The necessary party in present complaint is the manufacturer, which has not been impleaded. Thus, there is non-joinder of the necessary party. 
16. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the present complaint is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party as well as on merits without orders to cost. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                   Member	(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                          Member (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)           President