Haryana

Karnal

CC/551/2020

Suchita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kanavdeep

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 551 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.02.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:02.06.2023

 

Suchita daughter of Shri Jaipal Goel, resident of house no.106, ward no.4, new Anaj Mandi, Gharaunda, District Karnal, now residing at house no.2309, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., 9^th floor, Sky-1, plot no.72, Kalyani Nagar, Pune-411006, India. Telephone no.02030519100 through its Director.

 

2.     Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., F-19, MIDC Area Baramati-413133, Pune Maharashtra, India through its Director.

 

3.     DSR Auto’s SCO -9, Sector-14, Meerut Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person alongwith Kanavdeep Adv.

                    Shri Rajesh Gupta, counsel for the OPs no.1 & 2.

                    Shri Narinder Kumar, counsel for the OP no.3.

       

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhayr, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an Advocate by profession and purchased a Vespa Scooter bearing chasis no.MET0000WAZB002357, colour grey from the OP no.3, for the consideration  of Rs.93,434/-. The OPs no.2 and 3 are the manufacturer of the said scooter. After purchase of the said scooter, complainant got registered the same with Registration Authority, Karnal and Registration Authority allotted the registration no.HR-91A-0544. Complainant spent an amount of Rs.5746/- for the registration of the said scooter. Complainant also obtained an insurance policy from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for t he said scooter, which is valid from 06.08.2020 to 05.08.2021 and spent an amount of Rs.5820/- for the insurance of the scooter. It is further averred that a scooter is always purchased by a person for fulfilling his/her necessities, for enjoying the comforts of life, but after purchasing of the scooter, the complainant felt that she has purchased ht scooter but has purchased harassment, mental agony and mental tension to herself and her family by spending an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- to the OPs. After the purchase of the scooter, complainant encountered with so many problems of the scooter and faced most difficult situation of her life. After about 19 days from the date of purchase of scooter i.e. on 22.08.2020 when complainant was coming from home to court suddenly the scooter got stopped and when complainant put her foot down to handle the scooter then a brick lying on the road struck the right foot of the complainant badly and got injured her right feet and she remained for more than one month at her home as the doctor advised for the rest. On 02.10.2020 when complainant was coming from Sector-32, Karnal and reached back side of Sector-7, Karnal, the scooter all of sudden stopped and complainant telephonically called Branch Manager of OP no.3 regarding the problem in scooter and Branch Manager sent a service executive after about one hour and till that time complainant kept standing alongwith her scooter on the road. When service boy come, he after opening the internal parts of the scooter, make the scooter to get start and when after starting of the scooter, complainant reached at Government P.G. College, sector-14, Karnal again the scooter lost its speed and stopped all of a sudden. The service boy again called who somehow arranged to get the scooter started and reached the house of the complainant and assured the complainant that he will take the scooter for removal of fault and after removal of fault drop the vehicle at the house of the complainant in the evening. The scooter was taken by the service boy and delivered the same in the evening of 02.10.2020 and reason given by the service boy regarding stopping of scooter is the bad quality of fuel. On the advice of the service boy, complainant started get filling the fuel from some other petrol pump but the problem remains the same. On 05.10.2020, when complainant was going to court from her residence the scooter stopped all of a sudden near State Bank of India, Sector-12, Karnal and after so many efforts, the scooter did not get start. Complainant called the Manager but Manager started making baseless excuses and misbehaved with the complainant. Then complainant called to private service boy and service boy started the scooter and told there is problem in supply in fuel. On 04.11.2020 the scooter was again stopped. On 06.11.2020, complainant gave the scooter in service centre of OP no.3 and mentioned all the problems. In the evening, complainant took back scooter but problem in the scooter remains same and now the scooter was started making noise and complainant after taking delivery of the vehicle on the acknowledgement slip written that she is not satisfied with the service and scooter was not handed over to her in satisfactory condition. On 13.11.2020, scooter again stopped in the market due to which complainant fell down. On 25.11.2020, complainant called the toll free number of the OPs for her grievances regarding the scooter but customer care executive has not given the satisfactory reply. Complainant purchased a new scooter and it is not possible for the complainant to stand in service centre of the OPs every day for removal of the defects. The scooter sold by the OPs is having manufacturing, mechanical, electrical defects and there is some error or omission in assembling or manufacturing of the scooter. The safety parameters in the scooter are at issue and complainant had spent a huge amount for purchasing the scooter and has lost her peace of mind after purchasing the same. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the scooter or to return the invoice value but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.3 is the authorized dealer of OPs and based on the information provided by the OP no.3, the present complaint is not maintainable. As the vehicle shall duly be brought for free servicing as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The vehicle in question was submitted to OP no.3 for free servicing only once on 07.12.2020 at that time vehicle covered 709 kilometer, OPs does not know the present condition of the vehicle, despite of multiple reminders by the OP no.3 but complainant failed to submit the vehicle for free servicing, hence she is advice to produce the same at the dealership for inspection. The vehicle was sold by the OP no.3 being the dealer. OPs being the manufacturer of the two wheeler vehicles, sells the vehicles to the dealers on “principal to principal” basis for onwards sale to the end customers. Further, OPs do not control or supervise the operations or day to day function of its Dealers. Hence, the name of the OP has been unnecessarily impleaded and issue in the instant complaint can be effectively and completely adjudicated in absence of this OP. The complaint has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further pleaded that no such alleged problem was reported to the OPs. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty in case any problem found in the vehicle, if the relevant parts of the vehicle can be replaced/repaired then not necessarily he entire vehicle needs to be replaced. There is no defect in the vehicle and complainant has not availed the free services well in time as per warranty clause; as a result if any issues are developed manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the scooter in question was sold to the complainant, at the time of sale, the OP has handed over the service book/owner’s manual and explained clearly regarding the duration of service, time, mileage etc. It is admitted that OPs no.1 and 3 are the manufacturer/seller of the scooter in the country, they have good reputation in the country. It is further pleaded that there is no problem in the scooter, rather the complainant had not followed the schedule of the services as mentioned in the service book/owner’s manual, she did not turn up for the proper service as per the scheduled mentioned in the service book. He further argued that official of the OP call the complainant for the service as per the schedule as well as through postal receipt but no response was given by the complainant. As regard the alleged complaint of 02.10.2020, it is submitted that mechanic of the OP went to the place immediately as it is very close to the office of OP, the said mechanic checked the scooter and it was found o.k. the scooter started immediately, it was handed over to the complainant there, however, the complainant asked the said mechanic to take the scooter to the workshop of OP and check the same. After checking the same, no defect was found. The scooter was again handed over to the complainant in o.k. condition. The alleged story put forward by the complainant is false, frivolous and concocted one, just to harass and humiliate the OP. It is further pleaded that regarding the complaint dated 05.10.2020, and 04.11.2020  no message was received by the Manager of OP as alleged. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.’

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice dated 03.08.2020 Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of ownership record Ex.C4, copy of general information Ex.C6, copy of delivery challans Ex.C6, acknowledgement slip dated 02.10.2020 Ex.C7, job card dated 06.11.2020 Ex.C8, acknowledgement slip Ex.C9, bill of labour dated 06.11.2020 Ex.C10, calls details of DSR from 5^th October to 2 October, 2020 Ex.C11 and Ex.C12, calls details of DSR from 2^nd  October to 28^th September, 2020 Ex.C13, call details of Vespa company from 25.11.2020 Ex.C14 and Ex.C15, copy of doctor slip dated 22.08.2020 Ex.C16, copy of office order dated 22.08.2020 Ex.C17, audio recording of call details Ex.C18, video recording of scooter Ex.C19, copy of mechanic report Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 19.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of vehicle history Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 11.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhupinder Pal Ex.OP3/A, copy of purchase bill Ex.OP3/1, copy of job card Ex.OP3/2, cop of service job card Ex.OP3/3, copy of letter to complainant dated 02.01.2020 Ex.OP3/4 and closed the evidence on 11.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Admittedly, on 03.08.2020, the complainant has purchased Vespa Scooter from the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.93,434/-.

10.           In the present complaint, complainant alleged that on 22.08.2020, when she was coming from home to Court suddenly the scooter got stopped and when she put her foot down to handle the scooter, then a brick lying on the road struck the right foot of her badly and got injured her right feet. She further submitted that on 02.10.2020, when she was coming from Sector-32, Karnal and reached back side of Sector-7, Karnal, the scooter all of sudden stopped and she informed the OP No.3, who sent a service boy to remove the fault and he started the scooter. She further alleged that on 05.10.2020, scooter stopped all of sudden near SBI, Sector-12, Karnal, then she informed OP No.3 who misbehaved with her. On 04.11.2020, again the scooter suddenly stopped and after many efforts, the same was got started. Further on 06.11.2020, she gave the scooter to workshop for removing the defects but she was not satisfied with the service provided by the OP No.3. On 13.11.2020, the scooter was again suddenly stopped and due to this, the complainant fell down with scooter and after so many efforts, the scooter got started. On 25.11.2020, she made a complaint on toll free number with regard to the manufacturing defect but OPs could not remove the defect and denied to remove the same.

11.           The version of the complainant has been strongly denied with the averments that the scooter in question was not having any manufacturing defect. When the complainant approached the OPs, OPs have solved the grievances of the complainant. The complainant has herself has no confidence to drive the vehicle in question. The complainant wants to extract the money from the OPs without any reason and rhyme under the influence that she is an advocate by profession.

12.           During pendency of the complaint, on the request of the complainant, the vehicle in question was got mechanically examined by the Engineer J.K.Sharma, Chartered Engineer/Automobile Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and who submitted his report.  As per report, he came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question is having a manufacturing defect, but the said report has been strongly rebutted by the OPs while filing the reply-cum-objection with the averments that the alleged Engineer has not called the OPs at the time of inspection. This ex-parte inspection is very much clear that the vehicle in question was inspected at the request of the complainant in the presence of owner and with the help of staff of local workshop but no name of the any member of staff is mentioned in the report itself. The said report submitted by J.K.Sharma, who is not an Automobile Dealer, he is only a loss assessor and surveyor, which is very much clear from his letter pad and he is not competent to access the manufacturing defect. The said report has been prepared only on the asking by the complainant and same is not binding upon the OPs.

13.           From the record, it is proved that there are some defects in the scooter right from the beginning which the complainant has been pointing out to the OPs. Complainant has got inspected the vehicle from Engineer J.K. Sharma but said report has been strongly rebutted by the OPs on the ground that the said report is not prepared by the competent person. Hence, for avoiding the further complications, it would be justified, if the vehicle in question be got inspected by the two expert engineers of the OPs and after inspection they would issue the certificate of no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In case the OPs failed to comply with the order of this Commission, the OPs (being manufacturer) will be liable to refund the cost of the vehicle in question and in that eventuality the complainant shall be bound to handover and to get the transfer of the vehicle in question in the name of OPs. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.06.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member