Haryana

Karnal

90/2012

Sushil Kumar S/o Uday Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nirmal Motors., Hero Motor Corp. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ajit Pal Mann

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.90 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.15.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 19.08.2015

 

Sh.Sushil Kumar son of  Uday Bhan resident of House No.595, Sector 6, U.E.Karnal..                                      

                                                                  ……….Complainant.

                              Versus

 

1.Nirmal Motors, Meerut Road, Karnal through its Proprietors.

2.Hero MotoCorp Ltd. 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, India, through its Chief Executive Officer.              ……….Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ……………..Member.

 

 

Present         None  for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ashok Nagpal Advocate for the Ops.

 

 ORDER:   

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased Motorcycle Splendor Pro Model- Sprfdresccr  from the Opposite Party (in short OP) No.1, vide bill No.10017-02-SINV-0611-1631 dated 1.6.2011, for Rs.44,948/-. Just  within two days of the purchase, it was having problem of  spark plug,  and  the engine stopped taking load and    chocked on main GT Road. He lodged complaint to OP no. but the   problem was not resolved.   In the job cards dated 13.01.2012, 19.1.2012 , problem of  the motor cycle was mentioned.  The OP No.1 assured him that problem  was  fixed  and there would not be such problem in future, but on the way motor cycle stopped all of a  sudden, due to which he fell down on the road and suffered injuries.  He dragged the motor cycle to   service station of OP no.1,  but the  behavior of the employees was very rude, they pushed him out and threatened not to visit the service station again. Then he made e mail to office of OP no.1 but there was no response.  Thereafter, on 28.1.2012 the OP no.1 sent letter of apology. However, the defects in the motor cycle were not removed.   Ultimately, he sent legal notice dated 23.1.2012 to the Ops  for replacement of the motor cycle, but the same also did not yield any result.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  They put into appearance and filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised   that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complainant has not approached with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts and that the complaint is not legally maintainable.

 

                   On merits, the factum of purchase of one motor cycle by the complainant from the OP no.1, the authorized dealer of OP No.2, has been admitted but the defects as alleged in  the complaint have been specifically denied. It has been submitted that the complainant got the first service of the motor cycle done from OP no.1 and did not lodge any complaint at that time regarding functioning of the motor cycle on 17.1.2011 after plying the motor cycle  for 2800 KMs. At the time of second service, complainant only submitted that chain set was loose, which was rectified.  On 19.11.2011,  the complainant  got his third free service conducted from OP no.1, which was a  complete service to  his satisfaction.   On  4.12.2011 at the time of  fourth free service, after plying the  motor cycle for 7200KMs, no complaint was made by the complainant. On 13.2.2012, the complainant brought the motor cycle to the workshop of OP no.1 and on inspection  by the trained engineer, it transpired that  there was leakage in the engine oil and that leakage was rectified immediately  by providing free service and the  complainant was satisfied with the job done.  However, on 20.2.2012 the complainant came to the workshop of the OP no.1 and alleged that the same was having starting problem. After checking the motor  thoroughly,  cylinder, ring set, pin piston, spark plug, wall inlet, wall fix exhaust were replaced as a  goodwill gesture so that complainant may not suffer any problem in future. Thereafter, the complainant did not visit the workshop of the OP No.1  regarding any complaint in the motor cycle. All other allegations  made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In the evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Annexure 1 and documents Annexure A to Annexure H.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of Ops, affidavits of Rajiv Bhaskar  Ex.OPA and Rajesh Bhamba Ex.OPB and documents Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP13 have been placed on record.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the Ops and have gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                As per the case of the complainant, the motor cycle  purchased by him started giving problems of spark plug and the engine, stopped taking load and choked on main GT Road just within two days of its purchase.  In the job cards dated 13.1.2012 and 19.1.2012 the problems of motor cycle were mentioned, but the same were not resolved by the Ops.

7.                On the other hand Ops have denied these allegations and submitted that in the first three free services no such  defect was pointed out.  In the second free service, the complainant only submitted that chain set was loose which was rectified. At he time of  fourth service, leakage of engine oil was found which was also  rectified. On 20.2.2012 even cylinder, ring set, pin piston, spark plug, wall inlet, wall fix exhaust were replaced  free of  charges during warranty period.

 

8.                The job card Annexure- J shows that on 18.2.2012, complainant pointed out that there was starting problem.   Annexure K indicates that  there was spark plug problem and the same was replaced on 7.2.2012, but again the same problem occurred.  As per the Job card dated 13.1.2012 Annexure E, there was starting problem and as per job card  dated 19.1.2012 Annexure F, the motor cycle was not taking load. The Ops have also produced job cards Ex.P5 to Ex.P13, which show that on 24.2.2012 there was problem of leakage of oil from the engine, which was set right, on 27.2.2012 there was complaint of engine smoky exhaust and cylinder, ring set, pin piston, spark plug, wall inlet, wall fix exhaust        were replaced under warranty,  on 2.4.2012 there was  no complaint ,  on 26.6.2012 only the horn was checked.  On 18.12.2012 there was starting problem ,on 1.1..2013 there was problem of engine,  on 8.2.1.2013 there was problem of taking load and on 22.3.2013 complete service was done.

9.                It is   evident from the entries of the aforesaid job cards that there were problems of leakage of oil from engine, chain set, spark  plug and not taking load in the motor cycle on different occasions, but the Ops had removed those defects and even replaced the important parts i.e. cylinder, ring set, pin piston, spark plug, wall inlet, wall fix exhaust during warranty period free of charges.  Development of such problems in a vehicle after long period could be due to mishandling  also and evidence on record does not establish in any manner that there was manufacturing  defect in the vehicle.  The Ops have repaired the defects pointed out by the complainant from time to time, therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

 10.                   As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

 

Announced
dated:19.08.2015                                                                         

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present         None  for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ashok Nagpal Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   A perusal of the file shows that none appeared for the complainant on 12.2.2015 and thereafter. Today also none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant despite repeated calls since morning. The  parties have already led their  evidence. Therefore, instead of dismissing the complaint in default,  the same is to be decided on merits.  Accordingly, arguments of learned counsel for the  Ops heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:19.08.2015                                                                          

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.