Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1080/2012

Pankaj Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. India Yamaha Motors Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1080/12                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal

S/o Sh. Rajender Mohan Aggarwal,

C-1055, 2^nd floor, Sainik Colony, Sec-49,

Faridabad, Haryana-121001

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director/Director/GM,

1^st Fl, The Great Eastern Center 70,

Behind IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi

 

2. Northern Motors,

A-5, Neelam Bata Road, Nehru Ground,

NIT Faridabad, Haryana

 

3. Green Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

20-21A, Railway Road, NIT,

Faridabad, Haryana

 

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The Complainant purchased a Yamaha Motorcycle ‘Fazer’ from OP2 dealer of OP1 manufacturer, on 08.11.10, at a price of Rs.72,403/- which is not disputed. It was with guaranteed warranty of 2 years or 24000 kms against manufacturing defects. The complainant faced Handle problem and bubbling with engine noise. It is stated that OP failed to remove this defect till filing of case. The copy of job card, photocopied from record of OP, shows change of front fork complete on 29.09.12 within period of warranty, free of charges vide Annexure C-4. It is alleged that the motorcycle was stationary due to non use because of difficulty in smooth running as defect did not get removed. The complainant seeks replacement of the same or refund of the cost.

The OPs filed reply questioning jurisdiction of Forum, as it was purchased in Haryana, the dealers were in Haryana, and free services done there vide job cards placed. It was pleaded that there was no defect and ok reports were signed by complainant. The vehicle had served for 24000 kms and warranty was over. Any manufacturing defect was denied. It was alleged that vehicle had met with an accident, after which complainant came for repair etc.

The complainant persisted with his allegations. However, in order to get the independent opinion from a dealer, the OP1 at Delhi got the motorcycle examined from OP3 and give a report. It did not find any handle problem, and after some minor adjustments etc, gave a free service. The complainant on 26.02.14 again reported defects in use. In the interest of consumer justice, it was sent to Prime Automation, authorized service centre of OP in Delhi. It raised of a bill of Rs.9,458/- for service cost & labor charges, including parking charges @ 25/day, which was later on reduced and complainant took back the motorcycle after paying the due amount, vide interim order dated 27.03.15 and case was listed for order on merits in due course.

We have summarily considered the matter. The OP has stated that complainant has not got the regular service done for free, as per instructions manual, and problem if any were due to this.

It stated in Para6 of the written arguments that OP carried out some engine work, outside warranty period, as a good gesture free, and some replacements done. We have considered the material on record and job card etc.

In our view, if motorcycle required some engine work within 2 years of purchase as admitted by OP in written arguments, it can be assumed that this engine repair cannot be related to irregular service of bike as pleaded by OP. It shows some inherent problem, which created noise and Complainant did not find the ride smooth on driving it. Though OP did not charge for it, yet the fact that it had some problem cannot be denied. The complainant had been saying it from beginning, but it came to be not taken seriously or ignored.

Nevertheless, keeping in view the fact that vehicle has already covered more than 24000 kms, and that it is now 4 years since purchase, in our view, there is no case for its replacement.

However, considering the net loss of satisfaction and disturbed peace of mind in its use and ride, which was not smooth due to engine noise, or problem or bubbling etc, we award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by OP1.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on ……………….

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER