BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 07^TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP)  to refund Rs.1,856/-, to pay Rs.300/- spent towards repair of the break down along with compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- each on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

On 13.02.2015 the complainant purchased a Jupiter Scooter of model 2015 bearing Engine No.BG4AF1429687, Chassis No.MD626BG43F1A38574, vehicle Registration No. KA-41 ED 332 from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1 TVS Motor Company Limited by paying a sum of Rs.51,577/-.  From the beginning there were minor problems in the vehicle.  Complainant brought to the notice of the dealer, authorized service centre many times.  While servicing in the first month and third month were given in time and problems were informed at the time of servicing. During the month of April/May 2015 the dealership of M/s.Spartan Motors was changed to M/s.Sree Balaji Motors i.e., OP-2 and subsequent servicing was done by them.  The problems were informed to them at the time of servicing and subsequently after about 10 days.  However, they did not check properly and failed to set right the defects.  On 04.06.2015 the vehicle broke down while driving in the city and back wheel of the vehicle was jammed.  The vehicle was checked by the service centre i.e., OP-2 and informed that clutch assembly was melted completely and as a result the cover fan cvt, Clutch Bell are spoiled.  All the said three parts were replaced and OP-2 collected Rs.1,856/- towards the cost.   They refused to change the damaged parts under warranty.  Though the vehicle was less than four months old on the day of brake down and vehicle was run only 1,845 Kms, complainant has spent Rs.300/- towards Auto charges on 04.06.2015 to take the mechanic to the spot and bring the vehicle to the service centre.  The said major brake down of the vehicle was due to manufacturing defects and failure of the service centre to check and set right them either during the servicing or when the vehicle was taken to them with complaints.  The total brake down of the vehicle on 22^nd day of the servicing and running of 536 Kms shows that the vehicle was not checked and servicing was not done properly.  On 12.06.2015 and 03.08.2015 complainant wrote letters to TVS Motor Company Limited seeking for refund of the amount of Rs.1,856/- which was paid during the period of warranty.  There was no response from OP.  Complainant approached the service centre on many occasions but OP orally expressed their inability stating company is not agreeing for the same.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to           OP 1 & 2.  Inspite of service of notice OP 1 & 2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OPs were placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, Sri.Radhakrishna P Yaji, who being the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments and produced documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. In support of his complaint, complainant has produced the following documents.  Document No.1 is copy of the certificate of registration in the name of complainant in respect of the vehicle registration No.KA41 ED0332.  Document No.2 is copy of the Tax invoice issued by M/s.Spartan Motors in favour of the complainant dated 13.02.2015 for having purchased TVS Jupiter model 2015 by the complainant from Ms/.Spartan Motors by paying a sum of Rs.51,577/- including Vat.  Document No.3 is copy of the warranty and services which states during 24 months from the date of purchase or during the first 24,000 kms of run for the vehicle in the hands of original retail purchaser, whichever is earlier, all parts of the vehicle which prove to the satisfaction of the Company to have a manufacturing defect will be repaired or replaced free of cost.  Document No.4 is copy of the service bill No.921 dated 13.03.2015 for Rs.372/- issued by Ms/.Spartan Motors to the complainant.  Document No. 5 and 6 are copies of the bill No.133 & 372 dated 13.05.2015 and 09.06.2015 for Rs.400/- and Rs.1,856/- issued by Sree Balaji Motors in favour of the complainant.  Document No.7 and 8 are copies of the letters issued by complainant dated 12.06.2015 and 03.08.2015 to OP-1 Company stating that on 04.06.2015 the said vehicle was broke down while driving and back wheel was jammed.  On inspection by the servicing centre it was informed that clutch assembly was melted and as a result the cover fan, cvt, Clutch bell are all spoiled and the dealer informed that warranty is not available for those parts and collected Rs.1,856/- towards the cost.  It is informed that Sri.Balaji Motors have taken over M/s.Spartan Motors recently.  Since the vehicle is less than four months old and vehicle has run only 1845 Kms, the parts should have been replaced under warranty and denial of warranty will bring bad reputation to the Company.   The complainant has requested to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,856/- paid during the warranty.  Document No.9 and 10 are copies of the RPAD receipts and served postal acknowledge card.

7.  On perusal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant it is crystal clear that complainant is the R.C. owner of the vehicle two wheeler TVS Jupiter Model 2015 bearing Engine No.BG4AF1429687, Chassis No.MD626BG43F1A38574 and Registration No.KA-41 ED332 as per Document No.1 & 2  certificate of registration and tax invoice dated 13.02.2015.  The said vehicle has got two years warranty as per Document No.3, within 24 months from the date of purchase or during the first 24,000 Kms of run in the hands of original retail purchaser, whichever is earlier, all parts of the vehicle which prove to the satisfaction of the Company to have a manufacturing defect will be repaired or replaced free of cost.  Within four months of its purchase i.e. on 04.06.2015 the said vehicle got broke down while driving in the city and back wheel of the vehicle was got jammed.  The vehicle was checked by OP-2 dealer and authorised service centre. OP-2 demanded Rs.1,856/- towards cost of the repairs and parts. Complainant paid Rs.1,856/- towards replacement of parts as per Document No.5 and 6 bills issued by service centre.  Though the vehicle was four months old and has run only 1,845 Kms demanding cost of the parts and repair charges amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP-2.  Inspite of repeated letters OP failed to refund Rs.1,856/- to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

8. From the available materials on record, it is crystal clear that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is having two years warranty, in respect of all parts of the vehicle, and complainant is entitled for repair or replacement of all parts free of cost as per terms mentioned in Document No.3 the warranty card issued by OP-1.  Within one month from the date of purchase complainant noticed the problems in the vehicle.   Inspite of servicing of the vehicle by OP-2 authorised service centre, twice within the first and 3^rd month of the purchase by spending Rs.1,856/- towards cost of the parts and Rs.300/- for repair, the said vehicle broke down while driving in the city.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the vehicle manufactured by OP-1 Company and supplied by OP-2 dealer and service centre is suffered from inherent manufacturing defects.  Within the period of warranty OPs are liable to repair and replace the parts at free of costs.  OP-2 has collected Rs.1,856/- within the warranty period.  This act of OP-2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Inspite of repair, the vehicle has broken down while driving, in the middle of the road and back wheel of the vehicle got jammed, when the vehicle is only four months old.   The act of OPs in not refunding Rs.1,856/- paid by the complainant, towards cost of the parts Rs.300/- towards repairs, inspite of service of notice dated 12.06.2015 and 03.08.2015 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  We are satisfied that complainant has proved deficiency in service against OPs.  Under the circumstances OP 1 & 2 are liable to refund Rs.2,156/- along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards deficiency in service and inconvenience caused and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

2. OP 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall refund Rs.2,156/- paid towards repairs and replacement of the parts of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards deficiency in service and inconvenience caused together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.   

3.  The OP shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07^th day of April 2016)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

NRS* 

COMPLAINT NO.1649/2015

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 10.02.2016 Sri.Radhakrishna P.Yaji

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs – Absent

List of documents produced by the OPs– Nil

MEMBER                             MEMBER                         PRESIDENT