West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/46/2016

Mir Nurul Absar, S/o Lt Mir Najir Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop, Auto Tech auth Service Centre, Hero Moto Corp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Monalisa Bandopadhyay

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Mir Nurul Absar , in brief, is that he purchased a two wheeler vehicle namely Viz usper splender (BRD) being registration No WB-48 A/1259 form the Op No. 1 Auto tech on 12/06/2015 at a price of Rs. 55,223/-. Total cost of the Bike on Road became Rs. 63,000/-.

            It is the further case of Complainant that from day after purchased of the same different types of mechanical problems like starting problem, clutch problem, cylinder problems have been cropped up in the said bike, even the bike did not take the speed above 40 km/hrs. He has already taken four free service but no change.

            It is the further case of the Complainant that at present the bike in question is not in running condition. He informed Op No. 3 but no consequence.

            Hence this case for direction the Ops to pay the price of the bike with bank interest with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

             The Op No. 1 Auto Tech, O.P No. 2 International Auto Mobile and Op No.3 Hero Moto Corp Ltd have contested the case by filing No. 3 separate Written Version denying all allegations.

            In same voice they submitted that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present case.

 It is the specific case of the Ops that the complainant has got the two wheeler after service every time with good condition, which will be revealed from the Job Card and other papers. That from the documents it will be crystal clear that the two wheeler in question is not defective and is in good condition.

 

            It the further case of the Ops that till date the complaint has not obtained any expert opinion in respect of the Motor Cycle in question and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and case is liable to be dismissed.

            In spite of due service of notice Op No. 4 Family Credit Ltd has not appeared before the Forum and the case was heard exparte against them.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Mir Nurul Absar has been examined as PW1 and filed some documents. He was also cross examined by the Ops.

            The contested ops have not adduced any oral evidence but submitted some documents

Heard arguments of both sides.

Point No.1:- Evidently the complainant has purchased a two wheeler vehicle namely Viz usper splender (BRD) being registration No. WB-48 A/1259 form the Op No.1 Auto Tech on 12/06/2015 at a price of Rs. 55,223/-. So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- The op 1 and 2 have office and show room within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 74,955/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20, 00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to

each other.

            The Complainant in his compliant and evidence stated that he purchased a two wheeler vehicle namely Viz usper splender (BRD) being registration No WB-48 A/1259 form the Op No. 1 Auto tech on 12/06/2015 at a price of Rs. 55,223/-.

            Original in voice dated 12/06/2015 and original Delivery note show that the complainant purchased the two wheeler in question at a price Rs/. 55223 form the Op No.1 Auto Tech.

            Copy of registration Certificate shows that said two wheeler being No. WB 48A/1259 has been duly registered in name of the Complainant.

            Copy of the policy certificate shows that the two wheeler in question was under coverage of insurance for the period 12/06/2015 to 11/06/2016.

            Original owner’s manuals shows that five years warranty was issued in respect of the said two wheeler.

            Original estimate shows that total Rs. 64,955/- was assessed as price of the said two wheeler.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that day after purchased of the same different types of mechanical problems like starting problem, clutch problem, cylinder problems have been cropped up in the said bike, even the bike did not take the speed above 40 km/hrs. He has already taken four free service but no change.

            It is the further case of the Complainant that at present the bike in question is not in running condition. He informed Op No. 3 but no consequence.

            But on the other hand it is the specific case of the Ops that the Complaint brought the two wheeler in question before them for servicing and got back the same in good condition.

            Copy of Job card dated 24/12/2015 and 25/12/2015 show that the Complaint got back the vehicle after service by putting signature in the job card stating that he received the vehicle duly serviced/repaired to his entire satisfaction.

            We find from the copy of the certificate/report dated. 24/12/2015 issued by Chayan Sardar, expert which is duly signed by the complaint Mir Nurul Absar and one Hironmoy Sadhu, on behalf of Auto Tech that two wheeler in question was brought to the Show room of Op Auto Tech with engine noise problem on 21/12/2015. On 24/12/2015 the same was checked by TSM and it was driven around 20 to 25 km. on road. But there was no abnormal engine noise. The customer insisted that there might be cylinder piston problem and for his satisfaction cylinder piston was replaced. After replacing cylinder piston on test driving by customer no abnormal engine noise observed.

            Odometer reading was 10680 km.

            In the present case it is main allegation that there was manufacturing defect in the two wheeler.

            Evidently no exparte report was obtained by the complainant, to prove manufacturing defect.

            During hearing of argument Ld. Advocate /Agent of the Ops submitted that in the present case the two wheeler in question ran 10,680 km. and necessary service was given to the Complainant and the Complainant has not obtained any exparte report, so the complaint has failed to prove manufacturing defect of the two wheeler.

            In support of his Complainant his cited a ruling reported in 11(2015) CPJ 715 (NC), where the complainant filed a complaint case before District Forum alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle and Complaining that inspite of replacement of engine problems in the same subsisted.

 

He prayed for compensation for unfair trade practice.

            District Forum allow the Complainant in part. On appeal Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal.

            On revision Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that Op gave proper service to the Complainant during warranty period, complainant had not proved that it was manufacturing defect by cogent evidence form authorized expert or the vehicle was not tested before Government Laboratory as per section 13(1) (c) p Act.

             More so vehicle ran about 71,045 km. So the manufacturing defect has not been proved.

            Considering over all matter in to consideration and material on record and relying upon the ruling cited above we are constrained to hold that complainant has failed to prove his case regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle as well as illegal trade practice.

            Thus the both the points are decided against the complainant and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 46/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest  against the O.P No. 1 Auto Tech O.P No. 2 International Auto Mobile and O.P No.3 Hero Moto Crop Ltd. and exparte against O.P No. 4 Family Credit Ltd. without any order as to cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.