IN    THE    STATE    COMMISSION    :   DELHI

         (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision : 18.09.2014

First  Appeal  -748 / 11

(Arising out of the order dated 03.11.2011 passed in complainant Case No.151 of 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.)

In the matter of :

K K Kothari

S/o Late Shri Brij Mohan Kothari

R/o 8, Reading Lane

New Delhi-110001.

                                                                Appellant                              

                                        Versus

1. Shi Prem  Bagga

Bagga Link Service

Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110005.                                      Respondent - 1

2. Bajaj Auto Limited

Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi,

Pune-411035.                                            Respondent - 2

CORAM

S.A. SIDDIQUI, Member (Judicial)

S.C.Jain, Member

^{1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment ?}

^{2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?}

S.A. SIDDIQUI, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainant K.K.Kothari has filed this appeal against OPs/ Respondents under section 15 of the CPA 1986 (herein after called  the Act)  having been dissatisfied  with the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by DCDRF (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No.151/2010.

1. Brief facts relating to this appeal are that complainant / appellant’s son Sh.Umang Kothari purchased a Bike  with Reg.No.DL-6S-AC-5949, Bajaj Pulsar-150 CC from  OP / Respondent  M/s Bagga Link Services, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 03.04.2009.  Sh. Umang was a student of Hotel Management course at Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad and the vehicle was to be taken from New Delhi to Ahmedabad for his use there.  After purchased it was found that the vehicle was not working properly since the beginning and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the OPs who assured that defects would be rectified at the time of service.    Sh.Umang Kothari after reaching Ahmedabad brought this fact to the knowledge of Asstt.Manager (Customer Care), Asstt.Manager of OP2/ Respondent 2.  He referred the matter to the Service Engineer of M/s Bansari Bajaj, Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad.  Piston of the bike was not in working order with the result that vehicle was releasing more smoke with low pickup.  M/s Bansari Bajaj Services informed Umang Kothari that piston was not readily available and would be made available within a month.  After a month piston was replaced  but that too did not work well.  Thereafter, Umang Kothari came to Delhi and he brought this matter to the knowledge of M/s Bagga Link Services, Karol Bagh on 01.02.2010 and again on 17.02.2010 but still the problem could not be solved.  The complainant’s son had to suffer a lot due to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant therefore had no option but to file consumer complaint for replacement of the vehicle and payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- ( one lakh).

1. The OPs / respondents filed reply.  It was alleged that no cause of action was available to the complainant for filing the complaint which was false and frivolous. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd OP2/ Respondent 2 is the leading manufacturer of Bikes which are sold after due test done independently by ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India).  It was maintained that the complainant and his son were fully satisfied with the performance of the vehicle when it was purchased on 03.06.2009.  Though OP/ Respondent had contacted  complainants several times to bring the vehicle for service,  OP was informed that vehicle  was being used  at Ahmedabad and was running well there.  This vehicle was brought to OP1/ Respondent 1 on 31.12.2009 for 4^th  free service and by then it has covered 7,559 kms no major complaint was made by the owner. Due service was done but it was found that the low quality engine oil was being used.  It was changed.  The vehicle was test driven and was found in perfect condition.  The vehicle was again brought to the workshop on  01.02.2010 and was found working perfectly.  At the request of the complainant, motor starter of the Bike was changed.  However, complainant insisted to change the Motor Bike.  For the first time  the complaint wrote to the Company on 22.02.2010. Consequently the vehicle was inspected on 13.03.2010 and was found in perfect condition.   There was no problem of smoke  or hard running as alleged.  Despite this, the complainant went on sending letters to the company and the dealer to pressurise for change of motor Bike.

1. The vehicle was again brought to the workshop of the company on 17.05.2010 for paid service and the service  was carried out.  The vehicle was thoroughly checked and the minor complaints were rectified.  Thereafter, it was test driven and the complainant gave satisfaction  voucher.  OPs/ Respondents maintained that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs/ Respondents.  The complaint was baseless and was liable to be dismissed.

1. The complainant file  rejoinder.  Parties led evidence in support of their cases.  Upon the evaluation of evidence, the Ld.DCDRF (Central) came to the conclusion that during  the warranty  period necessary service were provided by the Service Centre  of Bajaj Auto Ltd.  There was no deficiency of service, the complaint was found without merit and it was dismissed through order dated 02.11.2011 for lack of evidence.

1. The complainant felt aggrieved and preferred  this appeal alleging that the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 was erroneous and unjust.   The Ld.District Forum ought to have appreciated that the complainant and his son were put to lot of inconvenience and harassment for which they ought to have been adequately compensated.  Dismissal of the complaint was thus illegal and unjust. 

1. The respondents filed reply.  The respondents in their reply maintained that the appeal was lacking merits and deserves dismissal.  Impugned order dated 02.11.2011 was well discussed order and no interference was called for.  It does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

1. We have heard Sh.K.K.Kothari appellant in person and Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for respondent’s 1 and 2.  We have also gone through record including impugned order dated 02.11.2011 passed by Ld.DCPRF.  It has been argued by the appellant that on the request and insistence of the complainant’s  son, piston of the Bike in question was replaced and necessary services were provided but the vehicle did not run smoothly.  Since his son stayed at a long distance from the institution he was studying, he kept on using the defective vehicle.  Complainant and his son were put to lot of inconvenience and harassment.  On the other hand Respondent’s Counsel maintained that, on request piston of the bike was replaced and necessary services were provided whenever it was brought to the workshop.  All the complaints were promptly met and all grievances were addressed.  The vehicle was purchased on 03.06.201009.  Since then it ran smoothly up to 20,000 kms.  Any motor bike with the defective piston or otherwise beset with various defects and problems as alleged cannot run so many Kms.  All those problems which were brought to the notice of OPs/ Respondents   were promptly  rectified by the Service Centre of the Bajaj Auto.  It was not worthy that the satisfaction voucher issued/ signed by the complainant and the complaint of lesser mileage  was attended to and in test drive it was found that Bike was giving average millage of 57 Kms per Ltrs.   

1. The complainant / appellant further argued that the  impugned order was illegal and unjust.  The complainant and his son suffered  lot of inconvenience  and harassment  on account of defects in piston and other defects in the vehicle.  The Ld. District Forum ought to have adequately compensated complainant.

1. Ld. District Forum while dismissing the complaint has made the following observation:

1. “The complaint has not placed on the file the job card etc of M/s Bansari Bajaj, Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad to find out the time taken by that service station to replace the piston, as claimed by the complainant. The complainant was not in Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad.  His son was using the vehicle and he himself got it repaired  as and when required from M/s Bansari Bajaj Service, Gandhi  Nagar, Ahmedabad.  The complainant has not even filed the affidavit on oath to decide that the said service station took months to repair the piston or the piston was giving trouble to the vehicle.  M/s Bagga Link Service cannot be held responsible  for causing any delay in service or in replacing the piston by M/s Bansari Bajaj, Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad.  Under these circumstances, we find no evidence on the file about the replacement of the piston and the time taken for its replacement at Gandhi Nagar.  The vehicle was purchased on 03.06.2009  and since then it has run about 20,000 kms.  The defective motor vehicle with the defective piston or otherwise cannot not run so many kms.  If at all, there was any problem in the driving of the vehicle then the service centre of Bajaj Auto rectified the same.  Now, the vehicle is perfectly in OK condition as per satisfaction voucher.  It is further important to note that at per satisfaction voucher, the complainant stated that vehicle was giving mileage problem.  However, during road test, it was found that the average mileage was 57 kms per liter.”

1. Thus, it is evident that the complaint was dismissed on account of lack of evidence.  The impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2011 does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality and we do not find any cogent reason for interference  from our part. 

1. Consequently the appeal is found without merit and is accordingly dismissed.  Impugned order dated 02.11.2011 passed by Ld. DCPRF in complaint case No.151 of 2010  K.K.Kothari Vs. Sh.Prem Bagga and Ors  is hereby confirmed. 

1. Let copies of the Judgement / Order be provided to the parities free of cost.  A copy of the judgment be also placed on the record of the complaint file.  Thereafter the appeal file be consigned.