Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 563.
Instituted on : 26.09.2017.
Decided on : 11.06.2019.
Munni Ram age 23 years, son of Sh.Ram Kumar resident of House No.331, village Patwpur Distt. Rohtak, throuogh his Authoriozed representative Krishan son of Ram Kumar resident of village Patwpur, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shivam Auto, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Authoriozed Dealer of Hero Moto Corp. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager/ Authoriozed person/Principal Officer.
- Hero Moto Corp.Ltd., Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, through its Manager/Authorized person/Principal Officer.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Randeep Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K.Munjal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 is authorized dealer of Hero Moto Corp under respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 is the manufacturer of Hero Products. That on 26.10.2016 complainant purchased one new motorcycle with gear make Hero Moto Corp. Ltd., manufactured by respondent no.2 from the respondent no.1 who is authorized dealer in Rohtak City, vide invoice no.10015-02-SINV-1016-3057, and paid a sum of Rs.45919/- to the respondent no.1. That the alleged motorcycle is on HPA/Lease with Hero Fincorp Ltd. That opposite parties provided warranty and guarantee of said motorcycle for 5 years. That the said motorcycle from the very beginning started giving problems and complainant made complaint to the respondent no.1, on inspection, the mechanic told that there was minor defect in the motorcycle and they have removed the same. That after some days, the said motorcycle started giving problem and this time the mechanic replaced the rings and piston of motorcycle and charged Rs.400/- from the complainant. That the motorcycle is having problem in its engine. That the mechanic of the respodnent,no.1 after inspection of the motorcycle told that engine of the said motorcycle seems to have manufacturing defect and to remove the same, they will charge the amount and labour whereas the motorcycle in question is under warranty and no additional charges can be charged from the complainant by the respondents. But the opposite parties refused to remove the defect of the said motorcycle without charging the additional amount and labour charges. That complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to replace the defective motorcycle with new one or to return the amount of Rs.45919/- paid by the complainant with interest to the complainant, to pay Rs.400/- charged by the respondent no.1 and to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.. 2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the said motor cycle since very beginning started giving problem. That as and when the complainant came for any problem before the answering opposite party No.1, the same was removed immediately. The amount of Rs.400/- has never been taken from the complainant as alleged. That an amount of Rs.331/- was charged vide invoice dated 30.11.2016 and this amount was for the replacement of oil, for drain cock packing, for nitrogen filling, labour charges including tax, VAT and surcharge which was within extended warranty and after excluding extending warranty cost. There is no problem in the Engine of the motorcycle or any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. There is no question of returning the motorcycle with a new one and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.01.2019. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R20 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The perusal of the job sheets placed on record by the complainant and the respondents itself shows that the major parts of the motorcycle engine i.e. cylinder kit, piston ring and crank has been replaced first time on 18.07.2017, whereas the vehicle was driven by the complainant only 7667 kms. and again on 15.09.2018 the alleged parts were replaced, when the vehicle had run 18558 kms. and the same is proved from the documents Ex.C15 and Ex.C16. The report of one Sandeep Automobiles dated 05.10.2018 is also placed on record, which states that: “The cylinder kit, ring piston and crank were repeatedly damaged and the vehicle in question could not be run for long time and the repairing costs more and therefore, it is better to replace the vehicle in question”. Moreover, at the time of arguments, the complainant placed on record two documents as “Annexure-A & Annexure-B”. A bare perusal of these documents shows that the complainant visited the authorized dealer of company i.e. respondent no.1 for the repair of his vehicle first time on 30.11.2016 when the vehicle had run only 687 kms. and thereafter he visited for 25 times and his last visit was on 16.04.2019 when the vehicle had only run upto 20264 kms. There were major defects in the engine ring, cylinder kit, piston and crank etc. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 26.10.2016 and thereafter it was repeatedly repaired by the authorized dealer of company w.e.f. 30.11.2016 to 16.04.2019 and the complainant could not enjoy his vehicle. As such we came to the conclusion that vehicle in question needs replacement.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to replace the vehicle in question with new one of same model & price and if the same model is not available, in that situation, to replace the same with another model of same cost. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
