BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2014.                                                                        

                                                        Date of Institution         :    25.7.2014.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    06.10.2016

Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of village Bharokhan, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Om Motors, Near Arorwansh Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa- 125055 (Hr.) through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Authorizing signatory.

2. Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, D-1 Block, Plot No.18/2 (part), M.I.D.C., Chinchwad, Pune- 411 019 through its Chief Manager/ Manager/ Authorizing signatory.

3. Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, Plot No.2, Industrial Area No.1, Mhow-Neemach Road, Pithampur, District Dhar- 454 775 (M.P.) through its Work Manager.

                                                        ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Rahul Sharma,  Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. S.C. Dahuja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

      Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.2.        

                   ORDER

                    Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Motor cycle make Centuro from opposite party no.1 on 2.11.2013 which is manufactured by op no.2 and registration no. HR-24S/7958 was allotted by the Registering Authority, Sirsa. The complainant get the services of the motor cycle as per the manual issued by op no.2 and only four free services have been obtained. Though after purchase of motor cycle, the complainant is facing number of problems in the motorcycle and some of them have been removed and some have been adjusted with the maintenance. On 16.6.2014, the complainant got serviced his motor cycle from the workshop of op no.1 and official of op no.1 issued a job card no.4358 and complainant paid an amount of Rs.300/- for service. However, when he was going to his village from Sirsa, the motorcycle was stopped by sputtering and he made his full endeavors to start the motorcycle but remained fail to start it. After that complainant brought the motor cycle to the workshop of op no.1 by arranging a vehicle and mechanic of op no.1 told that engine of motor cycle is seized and also told that motorcycle has a manufacturing defect. The op no.1 assured the complainant to repair the motor cycle by installing a new engine in it and also assured that in case motorcycle is not repaired, op no.1 will replace the motorcycle with a new one but till today op no.1 has failed to do so despite his several requests and serving a legal notice upon ops. Hence, this complaint for a direction to ops to replace engine or to replace the motorcycle, to pay exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassments etc. besides litigation expenses.

2.                On notice, op no.1 replied that complainant has been provided four free services as per provisions of free service and on each and every service, the Supervisor has given note of OK and complainant has accepted the same. Under the warranty, only repair or replacement of certain defective parts will be considered and replacement of vehicle is not warranted. The answering op contacted the complainant six times through telephone to come in the workshop but complainant has not brought the motorcycle for check up and repair rather has filed the present complaint.

3.                Ops no.2 & 3 have replied that as per the Speedo meter reading as on 8.5.2014 was 5369 Kms, which itself speaks about the factum that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and same has been used to its potential. Even now the answering ops are ready to get the vehicle repaired, as per warranty conditions to the satisfaction of the complainant.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13, whereas ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                From the copy of job card No.4358 dated 16.6.2014 Ex.R5, it is evident that up to 16.6.2014, the motorcycle in question has run 7000 Kms. after purchase on 2.11.2013. So, it cannot be said that motorcycle in question is having manufacturing defect. There is no expert/ mechanical opinion on the file to prove that motorcycle in question is having manufacturing defect. Self serving affidavit of complainant is not sufficient to prove the said fact. The opposite parties are ready to repair the motorcycle in question as per warranty conditions to the satisfaction of the complainant if the motorcycle is brought to their workshop.  As such, the complainant will be required to take the motor cycle in question in the authorized agency/ workshop of the opposite parties i.e. op no.1 upon which the opposite parties jointly and severally will make the motorcycle in question defect free after necessary repairs and replacement of engine and parts, if any free of costs within a period of one month. The ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:06.10.2016.                          Member.     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.