Date of Filing : 05.01.2009
Date of Order : 28.03.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.11/2009
MONDAY THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
Mr. M.N. Vivekananda,
A-Block, B-2, Ganapath Flats,
Gowry Colony,
Nanganallur,
Chennai 600 061. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. Mr. Rahul Bajaj,
Chairman,
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
Mumbai – Pune Road,
Akurdi, Pune 411 035.
2. The Manager (Services),
M/s. Sri Jai Autos Pvt. Ltd.,
No.11, 1st Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai 600 020. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s.v.Shankar & another
For the Opposite parties : M/s. K. Ganesan.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the cost price of the vehicle with interest @ 9% and also to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- spent on replacement of spares and other expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and cost of complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is in briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has purchased the Motor cycle Pulsar 220 which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party who is the dealer, on 6.2.2008 for Rs.86,995/-. The complainant further submit that the said motor cycle was found that on the date of delivery itself the rear break was not functioning properly, when it was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, the technician attached to the 2nd opposite party checked and found the oil traces on the break disk and it was informed that the unit was faulty one and replaced the caliper that too from another motor bike, assuring to replace the entire unit. Further complainant has stated that the said during the first free service when the vehicle was handed over to the 2nd opposite party, the said defect rear in brake, fuel gauge and peelings of paint in the rear seat cowl are not rectified and again after the said service the gear of the vehicle become hard for the same as requested by the 2nd opposite party the vehicle was handed over for service and was returned to the complainant saying that all the defects were rectified but the factual position is the problem was continuous.
2. When the complainant again approached the 1st and 2nd oppoie parties for the complaint of hard gear shifting, hard clutch, hard front breaking faced by the complainant for 2months period, even after repeated service within six months of purchase, the above problems are continuing in the said vehicle and which have not been attended by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has stated that the following defects are found in the vehicle such as hard gear shifting, engine turn off while the vehicle is in motion, inefficient front brake, the rear wheel movement getting stuck up while the vehicle is in motion and the speed performance was not as per the manual were continued for the period of nine months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite parties have not attended the said defects of the vehicle. As such the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 12.11.2008 calling upon the opposite parties to comply with the demands. The opposite parties issued reply dated 30.11.2008 when the vehicle once again became defective on 8.12.2008, when the vehicle was handed over to the 2nd opposite party 13.12.2008 when the 2nd opposite party handed over the vehicle back on 15.12.2008 to the complainant, when the vehicle broke down on 23.12.2008, when the 2nd opposite party handed over the vehicle back on 24.12.2008. Therefore the act of the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency of service, as such the complainant has filed this complaint to refund the cost price of the vehicle with interest @ 9% and also to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- spent on replacement of spares and other expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and cost of complaint to the complainant.
Written Version of 1st and 2nd opposite parties are briefly as follows:
3. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties submit that during the free services it was noticed that even minor problem which was faced by the complainant were due to poor maintenance i.e negligent driving and so that extent even he was advised to properly use the vehicle. However during the service all the things were set right, even if any problem exists it is due to the complainant’s extensive use of the vehicle for nearly 13 months and have been driven the vehicle for more than 20,259 kms as on 24.12.2008, but the problems are not due to neither non attendance of the service by the opposite parties nor manufacturing defects. Further there is no proof / report from the expert technician / mechanic for the alleged defect in the vehicle on the side of complainant, as such the opposite parties are not responsible and the complainant is not liable for the relief sought for in the complaint. Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties are filed and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked on the side of the opposite parties and also Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 marked.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
6. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite parties proof affidavits filed by the both parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 filed on the side of complainant and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 filed on the side of opposite parties and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 marked and also considered the both sides arguments, this forum passes the following order.
7. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased the Motor Cycle Pulsar 220 which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party who is the dealer, on 06.02.2008 for Rs.86,995/- the Ex.A1 Invoice is also filed.
8. Whereas the complainant has raised grievance that the said motor cycle was found that on the date of delivery itself the rear brake was not functioning properly, when it was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, the technician attached to the 2nd opposite party checked and found the oil traces on the Brake disc and it was informed that the unit was faulty one will be replaced later since the spares were not available at that time. However for this particular allegation raised by complainant there is no documentary proof, on his side, the opposite parties have also in their written version as well as in the proof affidavit and their reply notice Ex.A14 categorically has denied the said allegation, but stated that the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction only.
9. Further complainant has stated that the said during the first free service when the vehicle was handed over to the 2nd opposite party, the said defect in rear brake, fuel gauge and peelings of paint in the rear seat cowl are not rectified and again after the said service the gear of the vehicle become hard for the same as requested by the 2nd opposite party the vehicle handed over for service and was returned to the complainant saying that all the defects were rectified but the factual position is the problem was continuous.
10. When the complainant again approached the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for the complaint of hard gear shifting, hard clutch, hard front braking faced by the complainant for two months period, even after repeated service within six months of purchase, the above problems are continuing in the said vehicle and which have not been attended by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has stated that the following defects are found in the vehicle such as hard gear shifting, engine turn off while the vehicle is in motion, inefficient front break, the rear wheel movement getting stuck up while the vehicle is in motion and the speed performance was not as per the manual were continued for the period of nine months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite parties have not attended the said defects of the vehicle are factual to the complainant who is the user of the vehicle.
11. Whereas the opposite parties have denied the said allegations made by the complainant about the said vehicle, and contended that during the free services it was noticed that even minor problem which was faced by the complainant were due to poor maintenance i.e negligent driving and so that extent even he was advised to properly use the vehicle. However during the service all the things were set right, even if any problem exists it is due to the complainant’s extensive use of the vehicle for nearly 13 months and have been driven the vehicle for more than 20,259 kms as on 24.12.2008, but the problems are not due to neither non attendance of the service by the opposite parties nor manufacturing defects. Further there is no proof / report from the expert technician / mechanic for the alleged defect in the vehicle on the side of complainant, as such the opposite parties are not responsible and they are not liable for the relief sought for in the complaint by the complainant.
12. As contended by the opposite parties though the complainant made allegations of defects and the problem of the vehicle in the complaint, but complainant has not produced any expert report or technical report in support of the same in order to prove that the said defects are manufacturing defect. Further the documents Ex.B2 to Ex.B9 filed on the side of opposite parties with regard to the services attended to the vehicle by the opposite parties are proves that the said defects alleged by the complainant about the vehicle are not a nature of manufacturing defect but the minor repairs and defects occur due to vast use of the complainant to the extent of 32,529 kms as on 07.11.2009 in the normal course and may be due to improper maintenance and the speed of the vehicle driven, and the road condition and the atmosphere air condition etc. Further in this proceedings the said vehicle was sent for the inspection and for getting expert opinion to the Madras Institute of Campus, Anna University and the necessary reports were also received and the same marked as Ex.C1 and C2 by which the said report also not reveals any manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The defect mentioned by the complainant in the complaint of the said vehicle were negatived. Therefore as contended by the opposite parties the allegations made by the complainant the defects in the said vehicle were all appears to be minor nature and were rectified / repaired during the services attended by the 2nd opposite parties as per Ex.B2 to Ex.B9 is acceptable. Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the complaint mentioned allegations against the opposite parties, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties and this complaint is liable to be dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated directly by the President to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2016.
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 5.2.2008 - Copy of invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of owner’s manual issued by 1st opposite party.
Ex.A3- 11.7.2008 - Copy of email sent by the complainant to the customer
Service of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4- 22.8.2008 - Copy of email sent by the complainant to the Vice
President of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5- 23.8.2008 - Copy of email sent by the vice President of the
1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6- 25.8.2008 - Copy of email sent by the Service Manager of the
1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A7- 11.9.2006 - Copy of email sent by the complainant to the
Service Manager of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A8- 12.9.2008 - Copy of email addressed by the Service Manager of the
1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A9- 12.9.2008 - Copy of email sent by the complainant to the
Service Manager of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A10- 12.11.2008- Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant counsel
To the opposite parties.
Ex.A11- 30.11.2008- Copy of reply issued by the opposite parties counsel
To the complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A12- 9.12.2008 - Copy of charges paid by the complainant for towing the
Vehicle.
Ex.A13- 31.1.2012 - Copy of the article published in “The Hindu Business page.
Ex.A14- 28.2.2012 - Copy of article published in “the Times of India” Business
Page.
Opposite parties’s Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Performance test (CMVR) Report.
Ex.B2- 27.3.2008 - Copy of 1st Free service
Ex.B3- 25.4.2008 - Copy of 2nd free service.
Ex.B4- 19.5.2008 - Copy of 3rd free service.
Ex.B5- 28.8.2008 - Copy of Paid service done.
Ex.B6- 16.4.2009 - Copy of paid service done.
Ex.B7- 7.11.2009 - Copy of paid service done.
Ex.B8- 7.1.2012 - Copy of paid service
Ex.B9- 6.2.2012 - Copy of paid service.
Court’s document
Ex.C1- 22.12.2010 - Inspection & Testing report by Madras Institute of
Technology Campus, Chrompet, Chennai.
Ex.C2- 18.11.2011 – Test report by Madras Institute of Technology
Campus, Chrompet, Chennai.
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
