District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/125/2022

(Date of Filing:-09.06.2022)

1. Sri Atanu Chain

Sharada Pally, Bamunari, P.S. Dankuni, Hooghgly, Pin:-712250

    Versus  -

1. Noor Auto Centre, Boro Tejpur, Lalbari, Chanditala, Hooghly, Pin-712305

2. Premier Merchants Pvt. Ltd. T. N. Mukherjee Road, P.S. Dankuni, Durgapur Expressway, Dankuni Hooghly, Pin- 712235 and,

3. Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector-III, IMT Manesar, P.S. and District:-Gurgaon, Haryana-122050

……….Opposite Parties

 Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Mrs. Babita Chowdhury, Member

PRESENT:                            

                                                    Dtd. 04.12.2023

                                               Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with treatment extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above in the matter of purchase of a two-wheeler i.e. Motor Bike and the post sales services thereof, the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 09.06.22, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 involving three opposite parties as mentioned above.

Brief facts of the case

The complainant, reportedly a medical representative in profession, purchased a motor bike from the OP 2 on 07.08.18 at a price of Rs.85,000/-.

In the third paragraph it is mentioned that the warranty for the said bike was extended till 01.02.2021 on payment of certain charge to the OP 1.

However, allegedly, the complainant, since purchase of the motor bike, started facing problems related to engine and handle.

The Complainant had to lodge complaints with OP 1 several times but simultaneously he admits that in every occasion necessary repair work was undertaken by OP 1 but without showing any job sheet. But in all such occasions, the same problems used to come up again within a few days of the repairing work. Lastly OP 1 refused to undertake any further repair work.

The Complainant claims to have lodged a complaint with the ‘Consumer Forum’ on 23.09.2018 and knowing this, OP 2 approached to him and they identifying themselves as the authorized service centre committed to undertake the further repair work if required.

The Complainant admits that necessary repair work was done by OP 2 on 28.06.18, 22.08.18, 02.09.18, 09.10.18, 20.10.18, and 26.11.18.

Lastly the Complainant claims to have handed over the bike to OP 2 as the mechanical failure cropped up again.

The Complainant sent several e-mails to OP 3 intimating the problems faced by him and the said OP also sent several replies assuring him of proper remedy. But in reality the problem with the bike was not solved. Hence the complainant in his petition brings to focus his financial loss, harassment, humiliation and mental agony caused by the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite parties.

Resultantly, in the complaint petition, the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the purchase price of the defective motor bike of Rs.85,000/- only Simultaneously, the complainant claims Rs.50,000/-  as compensation for mental agony, and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are almost replicas of the Complaint petition. However in the evidence on affidavit the Complainant refers to certain job cards, the copies of which are found to have been annexed with the complaint petition. Apart from the job cards the Complainant has also annexed copies of one delivery challan issued by OP 1, e-mails sent by him to the opposite parties and received by him from the opposite parties.

 Defence case:- Now, all the opposite parties contested the case by filing written versions, evidence on affidavits and brief notes of argument denying all the allegations leveled against them in the complaint petition..

OP 1 in their representations puts stress on the issue that they were involved in selling bikes of different companies only and they had nothing to do with post sales service activity. They also put stress on the issue that the allegation of the Complainant is mainly against OP 2. The opposite party No.1 further claims that it is the manufacturer who can provide relief as per warranty clause and the opposite party no.1 being a retailer had no role to play. Thus, onus lies upon the manufacturer to take action in this regard

OP 2 and 3 in their representations submitted through written versions, evidence on affidavit and brief note of argument bring the following issues to the focus.

1. The Complainant did not avail of any free service from the authorized service centre during the one year routine warranty period.
2. The Complainant in case of any sort of mechanical failure, availed of services from some other repairing centre other than the authorized service centre. Here it is pointed out that repairing of the motor bike in the authorized service centre only within the warranty period was mandatory for the complainant.
3. On 20.11.19 and on 26.12.19 it was found that bike had a run for 43488 km. and 45680 km. since purchase.
4. The Complainant failed to establish any deficiency of service of the opposite parties in unequivocal terms.

Op 2 along with the evidence on affidavit has enclosed copies of documents like job cards, service history of the vehicle, mobile call list, text sms details and e-mail conversation.

                                          Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.                                                                                                     
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

                                          Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

 The complainant and the one of the opposite parties i.e. OP no.1 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

For the sake of convenience, these mutually inter-related issues are taken together.

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, written versions, evidence on affidavit and brief notes on argument filed by the complainant, and opposite parties and other connected records are perused.

A thorough perusal of the complaint petition indicates that the petition grossly suffers from inconsistencies, self contradictions, opacity and suppression of facts.

The petitioner repeatedly states in the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument that he purchased the bike from OP 2. But he produces the delivery challan issued by OP 1 which clearly shows that the bike was sold by OP 1. However the corresponding tax invoice is not produced.

The complainant claims that the bike was purchased on 07.08.2018 whereas the delivery challan is dtd.07.01.2018. On the other hand OP 2 and 3 in their written version claims that the bike was purchased on 27.10.2017.

The bike since its purchase appears to have been covered by warranty for a certain period. But it is nowhere mentioned in specific terms that from which date the warranty was effective.

The Complainant nowhere spells out that when for the first time the mechanical snag came up  and to whom he approached for necessary service related to repair.

It is not also clear that for how many times the mechanical snag came up during the warranty period and whether the complainant approached to the authorized service centre during the routine warranty period for the necessary repair.

In retaliation to the OP’s claim that during the warranty period the complainant got the repair work done from somebody else other than the authorized centre, the Complainant had nothing to retort. No clarification in this regard has been offered by the Complainant in his representations.

The manufacturing company or the authorized service centre is not supposed to take responsibility for the snags if during the routine warranty period service related to repair is taken from somewhere else.

The Complainant claims that the complaint in this regard was lodged with ‘Consumer Forum’ but it is not nowhere explained that with which Consumer Forum the complaint was lodged and the fate thereof

  In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that the instant complaint petition is devoid of any merit and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be established.

Hence, it is     

                                                                    ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no.125/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

           Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.