Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/489/2017

BIKRAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW STYLE FABRICATORS - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICTCONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

  

Case File No.               352/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   08-12-2016              

 Date of Decision        15-03-2018

 

Bikram Singh,

S/O S.Inder Singh,

R/O Preet Nagar Digiana,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

               V/S

1.Managing Director,

New Style Fabricators Ltd.

Ashok Nagar,Satwari,Jammu Cantt.

2.Director Sales New Style Fabricators Ltd.

Ashok Nagar,Satwari Jammu Cantt.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                     Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

       

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Ashfaq Ahmed Khan,Advocate for complainant,present.

Mr.Amarvir Manhasr,Advocate for OPs,present.  

                                                    

                                                          ORDER

                     Allegation of complainant as disclosed in the complaint is that allured by false temptations of Ops,complainant purchased Motor Cycle of Bajaj Auto Ltd.bearing engine No.JEZRFD71036 and chasis No.MD2A64CZ4FRD54541 on,7-7-2016 and got the said vehicle registered under No.JK02BQ-8061 with Motor Vehicles Deptt.Jammu.Allegation of complainant is that  immediately after the purchase of vehicle heavy mechanical defects were erupted and the vehicle was faulty and defected and the said vehicle usually stopped to pay on the roadside and at four times the vehicle got stranded at different places at Jammu and complainant suffered heavy loss due to which the complainant could not reach the  desired destinations and the loss which he had suffered was more than 5.00 lacs .Complainant further submitted that the said vehicle under heavy finance from HDFC Bank and regular instalments are being deducted from his salary when the vehicle is lying in the showroom of Ops at Satwari Jammu under proper receipt. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant also served legal notice upon Ops,but the same did not yield any fruitful result, hence the present complaint .In the final analysis, complainant prays for a direction to Ops to replace the vehicle and in addition also pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs on account of damages suffered by him.

                 On the other hand,Ops filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that complainant has purchased motorcycle in question only after making up his mind, on 07^th July,2016 and it was in perfect driving condition and was purchased only after his thorough satisfaction. The Ops further submitted that at the time of purchase of vehicle as well as ist free service of the bike, the complainant did not report any problem nor any defects,therefore,contents of this para are vehemently and strongly refuted.

              Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sharanpal Singh.Complainant has placed on record copy of certificate of registration, copy of policy, copy of temporary certificate of registration, copy of invoice, copy of counter cash bill and copy of job card.

              On the  other hand,Ops adduced evidence by way of duly  sworn evidence affidavits of Rohan Kotwal,Executive Director and Sudershan Wazir Managing Director,respectively.

                           We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                    Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that he had purchased Motor Cycle of Bajaj Auto Ltd.bearing engine No.JEZRFD71036 and chasis No.MD2A64CZ4FRD54541 on,7-7-2016 and got the said vehicle registered under No.JK02BQ-8061 with Motor Vehicles Deptt.Jammu,however,  immediately after the purchase of vehicle heavy mechanical defects were erupted and the vehicle was faulty and defected and the said vehicle usually stopped on the roadside and at four times the vehicle got stranded at different places at Jammu and complainant suffered heavy loss due to which the complainant could not reach the  desired destinations and the loss which he had suffered was more than 5.00 lacs .Complainant further submitted that the said vehicle under heavy finance from HDFC Bank and regular instalments are being deducted from his salary when the vehicle is lying in the showroom of Ops at Satwari Jammu under proper receipt. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant also served legal notice upon Ops,but the same did not yield any fruitful result, hence the present complaint .In the final analysis, complainant prays for a direction to Ops to replace the vehicle and in addition also pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs on account of damages suffered by him.

                 On the other hand,defence of Ops is that complainant has purchased motorcycle in question only after making up his mind, on 07^th July,2016 and it was in perfect driving condition and was purchased only after his thorough satisfaction. Further defence of Ops is that at the time of purchase of vehicle as well as ist free service of the bike, the complainant did not report any problem nor any defects.

                           Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

                     On cross-examination by L/C for OP, complainant deposed that on the assurance of Ops he has purchased the motorcycle. He has purchased the motor cycle in instalments.About ¾ times the motor cycle stopped on the road. Complainant has taken the motor cycle to the company and some parts are replaced. In the affidavit he has deposed that he went to waive mall, there his motor cycle stopped, he informed company and took the vehicle in question to the company. He has hired auto and reached home. He wanted to purchase the motor cycle of 125 CC but on the assistance of Company he purchase the motor cycle of 150CC/The vehicle in question is registered by the company and the registration number of vehicle in question is JK02BQ-8061.He has no knowledge when he went to service his motorcycle. When at two times, when his motorcycle was defected then the company has replaced the part. After 4/5 days he went to the company and the company has replaced the part. He has no knowledge about the replacement of the part. He has himself gone to the workshop. He took the vehicle after replacement of the part. At this time engine of the vehicle was stopped after that there was problem in the vehicle. After 15 days of the purchase of the vehicle he has informed company to change the vehicle in question. He again said that he went to the company, then company has wrote a letter to him which he received. He has served legal notice through Mohd.Shafi Dar Advocate. In the affidavit he has mentioned about the problem in the vehicle in question. He has suffered a loss of Rs.10 lacs He has a Field Supervisor. He has run the vehicle in question about 1500 kms.The cost of the vehicle is moré than Rs.70,000/-He has paid Rs.26,500/- in c ash and the balance he has paid in instalments .He has not obtained any bill of the same. He has obtained gate pass. He has not obtained RC,but he has obtained temporary RC.

                           After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                     Here we would like to refer to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India passed in case titled C.N.Anantharam V/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.reported as 2011 AIR(SC)523,wherein it has been held in paras 15,16 & 17 as

                 15.havig considered the various submissions made on behalf of respective parties, what emerges is the question as to whether the manufacturing company and by extension the dealer/agent was under any compulsion to replace the vehicle itself when the engine of the vehicle from which certain noises were allegedly emanating had been replaced. It has been explained that an engine operating on diesel makes a rattling noise which does not occur in petrol driven engines and that there was really no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as complained of by the purchaser.

              16.In such circumstances, the order passed by the National Commission, impugned in these Special Leave Petitions, does not appear to be unreasonable. For whatever reason, except for a mere 800 kilometers the Petitioner has not used the vehicle after it was delivered and has, on the other hand, made several complaints in an attempt to prove that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The National Commission has taken all these matters into consideration in giving the impugned directions regarding delivery of the vehicle to the Petitioner after having the same properly checked by an independent technical expert who would have to certify that the vehicle was free from any defect when it is delivered.

               17.From the facts as disclosed, it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one.However,on addition to the directions given by the National Commission, we direct that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax and EMI alognwith interest @ 12% per annum with costs, as directed by the State Commission.

                       After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                            Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion complaint is allowed and it is ordered that Ops shall handover the motor cycle in question to complainant, only after checking by independent Technical Expert and on certification that motor cycle in question is free from any defect. We further direct OPs to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to complainant and Rs.5000/-as cost of litigation. The OPs shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                                

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

15-03-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                               

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member