Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/36/2016

Billu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bala Ji Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Bhal Singh

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

 

Complaint Case No.36 of 2016.

Date of Instt.: 27.01.2016.

Date of Decision: 29.08.2016.

 

Billu son of Kanshi Ram, resident of House No.419, Ashok Nagar Ward No.4, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

       ...Complainant

     Versus

1. Shri Balaji Automobiles near Mini Secretariat, Hisar Road, Fatehabad through its Proprietor/ Manager.

2. Hero Motorcorp Ltd. 34, Community Centre Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar New Delhi-110057, through its M.D/ Proprietor.

                                                                        ...Opposite parties.

 

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Bhal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. M.K. Dharnia, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a Hero CD Deluxe motorcycle from the opposite party no.1 vide retail invoice No.10024-02-SINV-0915-1109 on 17.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.45,489/-. It is further averred that on the next day of its purchase, problem of bubbling started in the motorcycle. It used to create problem above the speed of 30/40 KMs and used to become out of control and the passenger sitting on the rear seat of the motorcycle also used to experience the said fact and there is apprehension of accident at any time. It is further averred that after three days of purchase of the motorcycle, the complainant went to opposite party no.1 with the motorcycle and after inspection opposite party no.1 found that there is problem of bubbling in the motorcycle. The opposite party no.1 asked its mechanics to remove the defect and they told the complainant to come after 1/2 days. Thereafter, complainant visited the opposite party no.1 for many times for removal of the above said defect and on 20.10.2015 he entered his complaint in this regard in the complaint book of op no.1 but despite that his grievance was not redressed by op no.1 and its proprietor used to give false assurances that he will get replaced the motorcycle from the company but did not do so. It is further averred that thereafter he also tried to contact with the opposite party no.2 telephonically to make complaint but he could not contact the op no.2. The opposite party no.1 has caused physical and mental harassment by selling a defective motorcycle to him and then by making false assurances of replacement of defective motorcycle from the company for which the complainant had to visit the opposite party no.1 many times for three months and could not drive the motorcycle due to danger. The complainant visited the opposite party no.1 for 20/22 times for the above said defect but the opposite party no.1 has flatly refused to repair or replace the motorcycle and even misbehaved and threatened him. As such, he is entitled to replacement of motorcycle with new one besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties for mental harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, estoppal, maintainability and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that answering opposite parties have not received any complaint from the complainant regarding bubbling of tyre. Complainant approached to the opposite party no.1 on 21.10.2015 for the first free service and service was done by op no.1. Then complainant approached to op no.1 on 20.1.2016 and problem told by complainant i.e. “rear tyre problem” was sold by op no.1 and motor cycle was also inspected on 7.3.2016 which was found ok. After inspection the complainant received the motorcycle in ok condition. The other contents of the complainant have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Annexure CW1 and copy of retail invoice dated 17.9.2015 as Annexure C1. On the other hand, the opposite parties have tendered documents Annexures R1 to R5 and affidavit of Girdhari Lal of M/s Shree Balaji Automobiles as AnnexureR6.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the both the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                There is no dispute that complainant purchased the motorcycle in question from opposite party no.1 on 17.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.45,489/- and said fact is proved from the copy of retail invoice dated 17.9.2015 placed on file as Annexure C1. The complainant is alleging problem of bubbling in the motorcycle since from very beginning of purchase of motorcycle and has alleged that above said problem has not been removed by the opposite party no.1 despite his various visits and even op no.1 misbehaved with him. But we see no substance in the allegations of the complainant that problem of the bubbling in the motor cycle has not been removed by the opposite party no.1. The opposite parties have placed on file copy of job card dated 21.10.2015 i.e. of first free service of the motor cycle. The complainant is alleging that he experienced problem of bubbling in the motor cycle on the very next day of purchase of motorcycle which was purchased on 17.9.2015 but in the job card dated 21.10.2015 Annexure R3 there is no mention of any complaint in this regard. The complainant complained about the rear tyre problem on 20.1.2016 which is mentioned in the job card dated 20.1.2016 Annexure R5 of the opposite party no.1 and at that time rear rim, tyre-tube were changed and complainant received the motorcycle in question after his entire satisfaction and the said job card bears his signatures. On 7.3.2016, the complainant complained about bubbling problem to the opposite party no.1 as is evident from job card dated 7.3.2016 Annexure R4 and at that also the front and rear both rim, tyre-tubes were changed and complainant signed the said job sheet with his entire satisfaction. The bubbling problem is due to defect in the rims and may be due to any defect in the tyre-tube and on 20.1.2016 when the complainant complained about rear tyre problem, its rim and tyre tube were changed on 20.1.2016 and when the complainant raised problem of bubbling on 7.3.2016, then both the rims of front and rear tyres alongwith tyres-tubes were changed by the opposite party no.1. So, it cannot be said that opposite party no.1 has not redressed the grievances of the complainant regarding problem of bubbling in the motorcycle rather it has provided after sales services to the complainant. There is nothing on record that motorcycle has any other defect or is having manufacturing defect. The motorcycle in question was also serviced on 3.10.2016 by the opposite party no.1 for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.271/- to op no.1 for change of engine oil etc. and signed the invoice in this regard, copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure R2 and at that time there was no complaint about bubbling of the motorcycle from the side of complainant. So, the complainant has not been able to prove his case. The authority cited by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as Nishad Nagesh Kulkarni Versus Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. I (2016) CPJ 584 (NC) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case it was held that deficiency in not providing proper after sales services established. But in the present case, it has been proved by the opposite parties that they have provided after sales services to the satisfaction of the complainant.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:29.08.2016.

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                   President,

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                       Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member                                                          Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.