Haryana

StateCommission

A/677/2015

TVS MOTOR C.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN DOGRA

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.677 of 2015

Date of the Institution:18.08.2015

Date of Decision: 16.02.2017

 

1.      M/s TVS Motor Co. Ltd., Plot No.4, Harita, Hosur, Tamilnadu through its Territory Manager/authorized signatory Sh. Vikas Kumar.

2.      Kunal TVS Auto Centre, Near Vaidik Ashram, Delhi Road, Rewari through its Territory Manager/authorized signatory Sh. Vikas Kumar.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

1.      Ram Singh S/o Sh. Manohar Lal, R/o Village Nandha, Tehsil & District Rewari.

 2.     Robin Power System, System Manager, Exide Battery, Authorized Dealer, Near Old Truck Union Circular Road, Rewari.

                                                                             …..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Arun Dogra, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. M/s TVS Motor Co. Ltd. and Anr. -OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 10.07.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Ram Singh, Advocate, Rewari, has been allowed by directing the OPs to either replace the scooty in question with a new one or to refund its price with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its purchase alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony allegedly suffered by him.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased a scooty bearing registration No. HR-36M-1408 from opposite party no.1 on 14.8.2008 which used to run on four chargeable batteries. The scooty started giving trouble from the very beginning during second service which was done on 22.10.2008. It was detected that the batteries were not supplying full current to run the scooty and as such it was giving jerks. The scooty started giving trouble time and again and an effort was made to rectify the defect by opposite party no.1 eleven times but still it could not be repaired. On the advice of mechanic of opposite party no.1, the battery and other parts of the scooty were changed several times but to no effect. The scooty remained in the possession of opposite party no.1 from Aug. 2008 to May 2010 but still the defects could not be rectified. The dealer almost changed all the parts of the scooty, but still it remained an eye sore and continued to give problems. On the advice of opposite party no.1, he had even substituted four Exide Batteries, but even then the scooty did not work. It could not pick up a speed of more than 16 to 20 km. and again the scooty remained in the workshop of opposite party no.1 since May, 2010 to Feb.2011, but of no result. The complainant ultimately approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance alleging manufacturing defect.
3. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared and filed reply but opposite party no.2 did not appear in spite of due service effected through registered post and as such he was proceeded exparte.
4. In the reply, OPs No. 1 & 3 pleaded that the complainant himself was to be blamed as the scooty was not used as per standard protocol and guidelines of the Company. The scooty was however repaired several times keeping in view the reputation of the Company and the status of the Complainant who is an Advocate. The scooty is manufactured with good industry practice in the factory and it passes through various tests and analysis such as quality of components, engine alignment, engine function, components assemblies, electro mechanical parts checks ride test, etc in compliance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and its rules and notifications, etc. The vehicles are taken up for dispatch to dealers only when the Quality Control test is found to be OK in all respondents. All the other contents have been denied with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint with costs. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 10.07.2015 by granting the aforesaid relief. 
5. Against the impugned Order, the OPs 1 & 3/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, from a perusal whereof the following salient features of the case are evident.
   1. The Scooty were purchased on 14.08.2008 and the complainant visited the OP with the problem in Scooty on 23.10.2010 i.e. after more than two years. Till then the vehicle had already covered 5600 K.M. and no job card whatsoever showing any repair was produced by the complainant.
   2. The first complaint before the District Forum was filed on 24.04.2012, in which the only claim was refund of Rs.7450/- by way of cost of one set of batteries alone. Whereas in the present complaint the relief sought is total replacement of the scooty alleging manufacturing defect in the machine. This is a clear improvement in the relief sought by the complainant.
   3. The warranty period of one year had already expired when the complainant approached the OP. Therefore “during the 12 months from the date of purchase for the vehicle and six months from the date of purchase for the battery in the hands of original retail purchaser”. Not only this, the complainant had himself alleged that he had purchased batteries of other Companies and had also got the Scooty serviced and various repairs made from different workshops. Thus, when the complainant had got the scooty repaired from unauthorized and untrained mechanic, he did not possess the necessary expertise of handling electric scooty, the OPs could not be held liable for the problem alleged to have been faced by the complainant. 
   4. Finally, the complainant being an Advocate was fully award that under Section 13 ( C) of the Consumer Protection Act, he was supposed to have the expert opinion getting the Scooty inspected with the help of the District Forum. He failed to do so and has not produced any such expert opinion or evidence on the record. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence, the OPs can not be held liable for the problems alleged to have been faced by the complainant, especially when the aforesaid submissions of the appellant have not been factually refuted on the record. 

6.      Consequently, we have no option, but to allow the appeal filed by the OP, set aside the impugned Order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned District Forum and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

February 16th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench