Haryana

Ambala

CC/293/2011

SARWAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHEN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SANDHU

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No. : 293 of 2011

Date of Institution     :13.09.2011

Date of Decision       : 07.12.2016

 

Sarwan Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Ram Rattan Saini R/o 38-A,Aggarwal Complex, Babyal, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

Versus

1. The Manager, Norton Motors, Ambala Cantt Tehsil Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.
2. G.M. Services, Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi Mumbai Pune Road, PUne,  Maharashtra through its General Manager.

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:    SH.D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   Sh. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

         

Present:       Sh. P.S. Sandhu, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Rishi Gupta, Adv. for  Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsar 235 LS Motor cycle bearing regn. No.HR01Z-6808 from the OP No.1 on 05.01.2010 for the value of Rs.51,760/- from Op No.1 having warranty for 2 years.  It has been submitted that after purchase of the vehicle, it started giving various problems usually it stops running during the way and it could not be re-started by making hard efforts and complainant through his son Balwinder Saini get it repaired more than 30 times. Out of which, the OP used to retain the vehicle for about 2-3 days but they failed to remove the defects of the vehicle. So, Op No.1 called an Engineer who after inspecting the vehicle told that the vehicle is having some manufacturing defect and advised the OP No.1 to replace the vehicle in question.  Therefore, a legal notice dated 04.08.2011 was served upon the OP to refund the cost of vehicle as well as for compensation on account of harassment but no action taken by the OP despite having receipt the said notice. As such, the complainant has alleged that the Ops are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to him as well as has played unfair trade practice with the complainant. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by complainant from them, however, it is submitted that as per terms & conditions of the policy, the defective parts or any damaged part due to the usual wear and tear will be replaced within two years or completion of 30,000 Kms. It has been submitted that the vehicle was well serviced whenever it came to their workshop and there was no defect in the vehicle. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-12 and closed his evidence whereas on the other side, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit  Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-8 and closed their  evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The counsel for complainant has argued that  the vehicle in question remained defective from very beginning of its purchase and complainant approached many a times  to the Ops but they could not rectified its defect and thus urged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the OP be directed to refund the value of the motor cycle. In support of his case, complainant has placed on record letter dated 26.05.2011 & 03.06.2011 written by complainant (Annexures C-3 &C-4) to the OP wherein he has submitted that the vehicle is having a lot of problems.  Complainant has also placed on record documents Annexures C-5 to C-9 which are service record of the vehicle in question done by Ops. Perusal of the above said letters (Annexures C-3 & C-4) reveals that  complainant has not specified  what type of problems was in vehicle. Only saying that the vehicle is having a lot of problems is  not sufficient  to substantiate the version of complainant whereas the complainant  should have placed on record report/opinion of any Expert Person/Engineer in the relevant field  to conclude that  the vehicle is having  any manufacturing defect from its very beginning or at later stage within warranty period but no such evidence has been placed on record thus the version of complainant is not tenable and does not found any place in the eyes of law.  Further the  documents Annexure C-5 to C-9 also do not reveals any major repair which could prove that  the vehicle was having  any manufacturing defect. The version of complainant that  as per assurance of OP No.1, if any defect incurred in the vehicle within 2 years  of its purchase, in that event, the said vehicle will be replaced immediately is not trustworthy  because no any document  has been placed on record in this regard whereas counsel for OP has denied these facts and to rebut the same  has placed on record Owner’s manual book (Annexure R-1) which reveals that  on examination, if any part of the vehicle to have found manufacturing defect within a period of 2 years or 30,000 Kms whichever  occurs earlier from the date of sale will be repaired or replaced by the company free of charge. But the manual nowhere reveals that the company has assured any of its customer to replaced the vehicle on found of defect in material or workmanship.  As such, the version of complainant that the vehicle should be replaced on found of defect is not justified and thus is not acceptable.

5.                In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                           

ANNOUNCED ON   07.12.2016                                      

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                           (D.N. ARORA)

                     PRESIDENT              

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       MEMBER