DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 29^th day of April 2019

Present: Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

            : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                       Date of filing: 13/04/2016

                                                      (CC.No.53/2016)          

Valsala,

W/o.Narayanan,

Muthalamthode,

Vilayodi Post,

Vilayodi, Chittur, Palakkad.                                      -        Complainant

(ByAdv.N.V.Bejoy) 

Vs 

1. M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd.,                                            

    Regd. Office,

    Akurdi, Pune – 411 035.

    India.

2. M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. Company,

    Rep. by its Managing Director/

    Authorised signatory,

    Akurdi, Pune – 411 035.

    (By Adv.John John for Opposite parties 1 and 2)

3. The Manager,                                                      -        Opposite Parties

    Grand Motors, 13/426,

    Kalmandapam, Palakkad - 7.

4. The Manager,

    Grand Motors, P.M.G. Building,

    Near Punjab National Bank,

    Chittur, Palakakd – 678 101.

   (By Adv.Chenthamarakshan for Opposite parties 3 and 4)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

          The complainant had purchased a Bajaj Discover 150F motorcycle bearing Engine No.JEZWEF24361 and chassis No.MD2A64CZ6EWF23111 having Reg. No.KL-70/B 915, from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount Rs.66,067/-. 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the above said vehicle. The complainant had done first service of the vehicle on 03.02.2016 at 4^th opposite party the authorized service centre of the         1^st opposite party.  After purchase of the vehicle the complainant was using and maintaining the vehicle in a good condition and also by following strict instructions as per the instruction manual issued to the complainant by the opposite parties.  At the time of purchase of the vehicle was having two year warranty.  On 07.02.2016 while the complainant’s son-in-law Sankar, S/o.Subramani was driving the above said vehicle motorcycle from Pollachi to his house, when he reached at Sakthi Soyas, he felt a terrific heat from the side of the engine, immediately he has stopped the motorcycle and get down from the bike, but the motorcycle had suddenly burned from the side of engine and the fire spread on all parts.  When he has tried to put off the fire that has not been controlled and in the result before he could anything the vehicle has totally been destroyed by sudden fire and the vehicle has totally burned out and is turned into ash and majority of the parts turned into ash.  It is beyond repair and redemption.  The above incident had been reported to the Annamalai Police Station, Pollachi.  The complainant feels that the reason of sudden burning of engine is only due to the manufacturing defect of the motorcycle manufactured by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Since the above said vehicle of the complainant was having manufacturing defects, the opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new vehicle of the same variant.  Even though on several occasions the complainant requested the opposite parties for the same, they had not taken any steps for the same.  It is further submitted that for the purchase of the vehicle the complainant has availed financial assistance from Bajaj Finance Ltd. and the vehicle is under hypothecation. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new vehicle of the same variant and to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with 12% interest till realization along with  cost of the proceedings.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that these opposite parties do not have any knowledge about the damaged vehicle.  The vehicle in question was never tendered for inspection to the opposite parties. No expert or assessor ascertained the condition of the vehicle.  The statement in the complaint the vehicle was totally burnt out and turned into ash is false.  The total burning of the vehicle is a complete impossibility.  Not even remotest possibility exists for the motorcycle to burn by itself without external interference.  All electrical wires and components are well insulated and there is no chance for any spark in any of them.  Moreover those are not placed anywhere near the fuel supply conduit.  The only spark producing component is the spark plug which is screwed directly to the engine. The only possibility of the alleged burning is by an external flame or spark coming into contact with a loosened dual pipe or any external inflammable material accidentally catching fire which will never happen in normal course without an external act.  So the damage, if at all caused, must be the result of a misdeed or negligent act at the least, and these opposite parties are not in any manner liable for the same.  The mishap as alleged can happen only due to mishandling of the vehicle by the person who used it.  These opposite parties are not liable to any of the reliefs claimed.  The complaint is filed with malafide intentions to make illegal enrichment and these opposite parties are dragged to litigation causing inconvenience and loss.  So these opposite parties are entitled to the cost of the proceedings.

Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A5. As per the order in IA/379/16 an expert commissioner was appointed and he filed report which was marked as Ext.C1. 

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties? 

          2.   If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

Issues 1 & 2

Both parties heard. We have perused the affidavits and documents filed before the Forum.  It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a motor cycle from the 3^rd opposite party and it was destroyed by fire. According to complainant the reason of sudden burning of engine was only due to the manufacturing defect of the motorcycle manufactured by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. According to opposite the only possibility of the alleged burning was by an external flame or spark coming into contact with a loosened dual pipe or any external inflammable material accidentally catching fire which will never happen in normal course without an external act. Expert commissioner reported that he inspected the damaged vehicle, but he could not trace out the reason of fire due to the delayed inspection. Commissioner inspected the vehicle on 21.01.2017. The alleged incident was happened on 07.02.2016, nearly one year delay was happened. More over on the perusal of Ext.A4 series and A5 series it is revealed that the complainant informed about the incident to the police station Anamalai only on 13.02.2016. She did not even inform the alleged incident to the insurance company or dealer at the earliest. From this it is clear that there were some negligent or omissions from the part of the complainant. So he could not prove his case before the Forum. Commission report is also silent about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In the above circumstances we are not in a position to arrive    at a conclusion that the alleged vehicle had manufacturing defects. Therefore the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of April 2019.

                                                                                                Sd/-

                   Shiny.P.R.

                   President      

Sd/-     

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                   Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - Photograph of the vehicle purchased by complainant.

Ext.A2 - Photo copy of certificate of registration(with objection) dated 18.01.16.

Ext.A3 - Photo copy of Tax invoice(with objection) dated 16.01.16 issued by 3^rd

  opposite party.

Ext.A4 – Certificate issued from Anamalai Tamil Nadu Police Station(subject to

  Proof) dated 13.02.2016.

Ext.A4(A)- Translation copy of Certificate dated 13.02.2016 issued from Anamalai

      Tamil Nadu Police Station.

Ext.A5 – Receipt of complaint dated 13.02.2016(subject to Proof)

Ext.A5(A) – Translation copy of Receipt of complaint dated 13.02.2016

Ext.A6 – Owners manual issued by Bajaj Ltd.

Ext.A7 – CD of Photo.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Commission Report

Ext.C1- Commissioner’s report dated 14/02/2017.(Original)

Witness examined on the side of complainant

CW-1-   Complainant

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost : 

          Nil.