West Bengal

Siliguri

96/S/2014

SRI RAJIB PAUL, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SILIGURI AUTO WORKS PVT. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 96/S/2014.                DATED : 18.06.2015.                

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SRI RAJIB PAUL,  

  S/O. Late Haripada Paul,   

  Vill.- Debidanga Bazar,

  P.O.- Champasari, P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                              

O.Ps.                    1.                          : SILIGURI AUTO WORKS PVT. LTD.,

  Represented by its Authorised person,

  2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri.

         

2.                               : BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,

  Represented by its General Manager,

  Akurdi, Pune, Pin – 411 035, India.

 

3.                               : THE SHOWROOM MANAGER,

  Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.,

  Bajaj Auto Limited,

  2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri.

 

4.                               : THE WORKSHOP MANAGER,

  Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.,

  Bajaj Auto Limited,

  2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri.

                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Subrata Sarkar, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

The complainant’s case is succinctly summarized as follows :-

On 23.02.2011 the complainant purchased a motor cycle being model “Pulsar 150 DTSI” from the OP No.1 in cash of Rs.70,543/- under a money receipt being No.M.R. No.7019, Tax Invoice No.4599, Challan

 

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

 

 

No.C2939 dated 23.02.2011.  The vehicle was registered with a vehicle registration fee of Rs.3,365/-.  The OP No.1 is the authorized dealer and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer.  From the very beginning the complainant faced problem at the engine.  The complainant informed the defect to the OP No.1 and others.  The workshop manager changed Ball Rasher set twice.  The complainant has repaired the engine many times at the other garage and has come to know that there are major problems inside the engine and around the Ball Rasher area.  The new workshop manager checked the motor cycle and has come to know about the problems arising from the handle as well as from the engine.  The complainant requested the OP No.1 and others to change the engine, but the OPs did not take any steps.  Thereafter, on 02.06.2014 the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs, but did not get any response.  Finding no alternative the complainant has filed this case praying for relief as laid down in the prayer of complaint.

The OPs appeared and contested the case filing written version 

OP No.1 is the Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.  OP No.2 is the Bajaj Auto Ltd.  OP No.3 is the Showroom Manager.  OP No.4 is the Workshop Manager.  The office of OP Nos.1, 3 & 4 are situated in Siliguri.  The office of OP No.2 Bajaj Auto Ltd. is in Puna.

It is contended by OPs that when the complainant purchased the vehicle from them, the vehicle was in good running condition.  Later on, at the time of first service, bike was absolutely right, but due to rash driving and wrong maintenance of the complainant, the said vehicle damaged.  There is no provision of replacement of entire vehicle after registration and after over of warranty period.  After warranty period no such replacement could arise.  But after warranty period if the vehicle suffers damage the OPs are not liable and OPs have informed this matter to the complainant.  The OPs also contended that the vehicle was

 

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

 

 

purchased on 23.02.2011.  Complaint was filed after 3 years 7 months i.e., on 30.07.2014 and as such the suit is barred by law of limitation.  It is also contended that manufacturing defect can only be proved by an expert report or opinion.  In this case no expert has been appointed.  It is also contended that vehicle was delivered in good condition but subsequently it was affected.  Therefore the complainant is liable for that.

Point for decision

 

1.       Whether there was defect of the motorcycle at the time of purchase?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

 

The complainant has filed following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of the motor cycle.

2.       Photocopy of life time tax receipt issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri motor vehicle department.

3.       Photocopy of Tax Invoice issued by Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

4.       Photocopy of Money Receipt issued by Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

5.       Photocopy of all Workshop Receipt issued by Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

6.       Photocopy of letter sent to the Showroom Manager by the complainant.

7.       Photocopy of letter sent to the Workshop Manager by the complainant.

8.       Photocopy of Postal receipt issued by Indian Post.

9.       Photocopy of A/D received by complainant.

10.     Photocopy of cash memo issued by Diresh Auto works for motor cycle spares.

11.     Photocopy of Owners Manual where terms and conditions of warranty is given.

Contd…….P/4

-:4:-

 

 

12.     Photocopy of reply letter issued by Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

 

OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       Copies of Bajaj Terms/Rule and job cards of Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

2.       Lawyer’s notice dated 13.07.2014.

3.       Xerox copies of some rulings. 

 

Complainant has filed the evidence-in-chief.

The OPs have also filed evidence-in-chief.

 

Decision with reason

 

After going through the petition of both sides and evidence on record, it is seen that complainant purchased the vehicle on 23.02.2011 by cash payment.  The OP Company admits it.  They also admit that they became known regarding defect after few days and the workshop personnel changed the ball rasher and other minor defect.  It is admitted by the OPs that after purchase the complainant preferred engine repairing in other garage.  In para no.6 of evidence–in-chief by the OPs admitted fact of evidence stands that there was problem in the engine.  The same was known to the OPs and that was too within warranty period. 

So, from the evidence of both side reveals that the suffering arose after purchasing the vehicle by complainant and still continued.  The admission of both sides in their evidence and Xerox copies of cash memos filed by the complainant shows that cause of action has not been restricted by two years, but continues cause of action.  Accordingly, the limitation point stated by the OPs is not available by the OPs to restrict the cause of action. 

On the other hand point of dispute admitted by the OPs shows

 

Contd…….P/4

-:5:-

 

 

that there was defect in the vehicle in question.  The complainant has been suffering from the defect of vehicle since purchasing and the OPs Company did not remove the defect of engine or other parts of the vehicle.  Thereafter, the complainant approached before the Forum claiming relief as per Section 14 of the C.P. Act. 

Accordingly, after considering the entire circumstances as reflected in the petitions of both sides, evidence on record, and documents therein, and after a thread bare discussion this Forum is of opinion that the complainant should get relief as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Now, it is necessary to calculate the quantum of compensation.

As per Provision of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, the complainant is entitled to get the price of the vehicle or may get new motor cycle of the same model. 

The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and cost of litigation. 

Hence, it is

                 O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.96/S/2014 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest. 

The complainant is entitled to get the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.73,908/- or a new motor cycle of the same model from the OPs.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony, and harassment and cost of litigation from the OPs.

The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.73,908/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for the price of the vehicle, or to handover a new motor cycle of the same model to the complainant, within 45 days of this order.

 

Contd…….P/5

-:6:-

 

 

The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment, and cost of litigation, within 45 days of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate 9 percentage per annum from the date of this order till realization.

In case of default of payment or handover a new motor cycle of the same model as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                                                       -President-