BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 163 of 2018
Date of Institution : 23.05.2018
Date of Decision : 30.04.2019
Ved Parkash aged about 29 years son of Shri Om Parkassh resident of village Chamal Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Raja Motors, Authorized Dealer, Bajaj Auto Ltd. Near Aastha Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa District Sirsa through its authorized person.
2.Bajaj Auto Ltd. having its registered and Head office at Akurdi, Pune-411035, through its authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ajay Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.JBL, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 from Op No.1 vide invoice No.RMGST/851 dated 29.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.32,200/- and he got the same insured with Oriental Insurance Company through Op No.1 on 29.03.2018. The vehicle was allotted registration No.HR24Z-3018. After about a month from the purchase, the complainant got 1st service of the motor cycle done from service centre of Op No.1 for first service and necessary entry regarding this was also made in the service book. Thereafter, when the complainant was going to his village Chamal on the motor cycle but on the way the motor cycle stopped working and could not start. The complainant requested the Op No.1 for putting the motor cycle in working condition but it admitted that mobile engine oil was left to be filled in the motor cycle. After that, mechanic of the Op No.1 came at the spot alnogwith mobile oil and after filling the same in the tank of the motor cycle, tried to start the motor cycle but failed. On inspection, it came to notice that the engine of the motor cycle has been seized on account of non-filling of the mobile oil and it all happened due to negligent act on the part of Op No.1. The Op No.1 assured the complainant to make the motor cycle roadworthy but failed to do so despite number of visits and requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and field their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he is estopped to file the present complaint. It has been further submitted that mere statement is not enough to prove the defect as the complainant has failed to produce any expert report on the case file. Moreover, after the sale of the vehicle, the replying Ops were not having any control or knowledge as to how the vehicle was being used and whether the same was being properly maintained or not. The complainant had got first service done when the vehicle ha covered 1301 kms and as per specification, the first service was to be got done between 500-750 kms which shows that the complainant has failed to observe the service schedule, so the warranty on the vehicle was not applicable. On 23.04.2018, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant, after service, upto the satisfaction of the complainant and regarding this the complainant has put his signatures on the job card. On the same day, during late hours, the vehicle was again brought in the workshop with some noise in engine. The mobile oil was duly filled in by the mechanic of the Op No.1. The motor cycle is still lying with the Op No.1 and the complainant has not allowed to repair the same. The Op No.1 is ready to repair the vehicle in question. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant, in order to prove his case, has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. In support, he has also placed on file copy of invoice dated Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, service charges receipt Ex.C4 and delivery certificate Ex.C5. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Neeraj Sardana, Ex.R1, in which he has reiterated all the contents of written statement and the Ops have also placed documents first service receipt Ex.C2 and correspondence of Op No.1 and OP No.2.
6. It is proved fact on record that the complainant had purchased motor cycle from Op No.1, which was manufactured by O pNo.2 for a sum of Rs.32200/- on 29.03.2018 and had been getting service from Op No.1.
7. As per allegations of the complainant that after about one month of its purchase he got first service of the motor cycle and when after getting the service done, he was going to his village Chamal from Sirsa and when he reached village Jhonpra Mor, his motor cycle suddenly stopped there and did not start thereafter and he approached the Op No.1. The Op No.1, realize and admitted that the mobile oil was left to be filled in the motor cycle mistakenly by the mechanic of the Op No.1, who visited the spot, thereafter and took the vehicle to the workshop of Op No.1, where it was found that the engine of the motor cycle was seized on account of non filling of mobile oil. From the affidavit of complainant, it appears that there is a negligence on the part of mechanic of Op No.1, who did not fill the engine oil after service, as a result of which, the engine of the vehicle was seized, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to carry out necessary repair by overhauling the engine of the motor cycle and to make it defect free, without any costs within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and handover the same to the complainant against proper receipt. The Ops are further directed that in case the engine of the vehicle is not repairable, then the Ops will replace the engine of the vehicle with new one. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
