The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Shree Bharat Motors Ltd., Authorised Dealers of Bajaj Commercial Vehicles, Ganeswarpur, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had purchased a Bajaj Auto from O.P No.1 on 27.02.2015 on payment of Rs.1,67,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty seven thousand) only including its cost of registration bearing Registration No. OD 01G 4886. But, so many defects were noticed/ detected in its engine, which were brought to the notice of O.P No.1 at the time of its first servicing. The O.P No.1 on 10.04.2015 repaired the engine and assured the Complainant that defect will be removed after regular running of said vehicle. Though the O.P No.1 repaired the vehicle, but after few days, the engine became more defective, thereby lost its capacity for running on the road. There was continuous leakage of mobil from its engine governor, for which oil seal was changed repeatedly. Accordingly, the O.P No.1 stated that oil leakage could not be controlled due to manufacturing defect, as such the O.P No.1 did not replace the engine within the period of warranty, thereby other defects were noticed in the engine gradually and ultimately, the engine was seized, requiring no servicing further. In spite of lodging so many complain in the matter before O.P No.1 since 10.04.2015 by the Complainant, the O.P No.1 on 25.07.2016 refused to replace the engine, causing financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 25.07.2016. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of a new engine in place of defective one along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the Complainant had purchased one Bajaj Re Compact Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. OD 01G 4886 from O.P No.1 on 27.02.2015 and after continuously and extensively using it for nearly 18 months, accordingly has filed this complaint in August-2016. On 21.05.2016, the said vehicle has shown reading of 29932 K.Ms. Thereafter, the vehicle was also in continuous use. This complaint has also been filed after expiry of the warranty period. The vehicle was purchased on 27.02.2015 and the warranty has already been expired on 26.02.2016 and the complaint has been filed in August-2016. Further, in May-2016, the vehicle has reading of 29932 K.Ms and it must have already crossed 30000 K.Ms in May itself. Thus, the vehicle is out of warranty by way of usage also. Further, the Complainant is required to submit as per Section-13 of the C.P Act-1986 cogent evidence like some expert opinion about the allegations, but in this case, nothing is filed. The allegations are therefore baseless and without any substantiation of its correctness. The Complainant is completely silent about the services to the vehicle. Further, the Complainant has brought his vehicle for various free warranty services and paid services on-
Date Kilometer Reading
27.02.2015 Date of Purchase
09.03.2015 1041 K.Ms- When he received Fitness Certificate
10.04.2015 4116 K.Ms
19.05.2015 7667 K.Ms
21.07.2015 18148 K.Ms
12.04.2016 26742 K.Ms
21.05.2016 29932 K.Ms
Thus, there is continuous and extensive use of the vehicle. The Complainant was satisfied about the performance of the vehicle as he has given the satisfaction note while collecting the vehicle after availing services. The Complainant has availed the services for his vehicle and given satisfaction letters. Copies of satisfaction letters dtd.19.05.2015 and dtd.12.04.2016 are attached herewith. In the satisfaction letter dtd.19.05.2015, the Complainant has himself mentioned that he has got his vehicle repaired by local garage at Soro. As per warranty terms and conditions, if the vehicle is repaired at any unauthorized outlet, the vehicle will go out of warranty. Thus, the vehicle has gone out of warranty well before filing of the complaint petition before this Forum. While filing the complaint, the Complainant has deliberately not attached copy of the owner’s manual so as to conceal the fact and he is also trying to abuse the process. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged vehicle, he has periodically made service before the O.P No.1 and ultimately, there was leakage of oil and it could not be controlled due to manufacturing defect, for which the O.P No.1 did not replace the engine of the vehicle, which amounts to defective goods and thus, the Complainant has filed this case in this Forum praying for replacement of a new engine in place of defective one along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the Complainant has filed this case after the period of warranty, for which he has no base to complain against the O.Ps. Furthermore, it has been argued by the O.Ps that in all services, the Complainant has given his satisfaction letter vide Annexure-C, wherein it has been disclosed that the vehicle was repaired by local garage at Soro, for which the warranty was not valid. However, from the warranty card, there is no such clause that whenever the vehicle was repaired outside of the Company’s authorized service centre, the warranty will be invalid. In such card, it has been mentioned that “If for some reasons you take the vehicle to a local garage, please demand genuine Bajaj spares to be fitted to ensure optimum performance and longer life of the vehicle”. So, the argument has no force regarding repair of the vehicle in the local garage. In the instant case, the provision of Section-13 of C.P Act-1986 regarding defective goods has not been carried out either by sending for proper analysis or test of the goods or be educing cogent evidence to the Forum. So, it has been argued by the O.Ps that when Section-13 has not been followed, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Further, regarding filing of the complain after warranty period, in support of his argument, the O.Ps have relied upon the authority reported in III (1999) CPJ-566 in the case of M/s. S.R Gadre & Co and Anr (Vrs.) Ramesh Chandraji Kanhailalji Shraogi & ors., wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai that “when the complaint itself is made after the period of warranty, there was no question of any performance of service by the appellant”. Furthermore, the O.Ps have relied upon the authority reported in I (1992) CPJ-279 (NC) in the case of M/s. E.I.D Perry (India) Ltd. (Vrs.) Baby Benjamin Thushra, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi that “when the defective goods not sent to the Laboratory for examination, the finding that it suffered from manufacturing defect is not correct”.
6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant has miserably failed to establish his case as alleged, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 10th day of July, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
