Haryana

Karnal

CC/69/2022

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soulmate Auto Gallery LLP - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Bhardwaj

16 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 69 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.07.02.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:16.10.2024

 

Ranjit Singh son of Shri Chotte Lal, resident of house no.512, Vakilpura, Sadar Bazar, Karnal. Aadhaar no.6531 9994 6716.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. opposite Subhash Gate, near Meera Ghati, Karnal, through its Proprietor/Director/Authorized Signatory.

Also at: workshop situated near Essar Petrol Pump, Bahadur Chand Colony, Karnal.

2. Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Limited 2^nd floor, plot no.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…. Member 

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP no.1 exparte, vide order dated 19.12.2022.

                   Shri Ravinder Rana, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (Neeru Agarwal, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the month of February, 2021 the complainant had purchased a motorcycle Model no. Intruder FI, from the OP no.1, which was manufactured by OP no.2. OP no.1 was authorized dealer of OP no.2. The said motorcycle purchased by the complainant under Hypothecation Agreement with Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. After purchase of aforesaid motorcycle/scooter, the complainant had got it registered in the office of Registering Authority (MV), Karnal vide registration no.HR-05-BE-5019. After purchase the aforesaid motorcycle, the complainant started using the same in his daily routine, but just after 3-4 months the complainant noticed that there is a technical defect in the aforesaid motorcycle and the same is not running smoothly and started creating the problem of “engine off” in running condition and the same was also “not quick start” because the aforesaid motorcycle was started creating inconvenience in its starting process on every morning of each day. Being fed-up the performance of aforesaid motorcycle, complainant approached the OP no.1 several times and complained about the aforesaid technical defects, where every times the concerned technical staff of the OP after doing some repair were giving assurance that now no problem would be arisen in the aforesaid motorcycle and during such period they have kept the aforesaid motorcycle of the complainant for many days with them, but all the times the aforesaid problem was not resolved permanently. During such visits, complainant requested the OP no.1 to give him proof regarding his visits but they did not give any response in this regard by saying that they are not authorized to issue any documents regarding visit of the complainant in their workshop. Thereafter, on 20.07.2021, the complainant again approached to the OP no.1 with similar problems, then the concerned technical staff of the OP no.1 had replaced the battery of the motorcycle and charged Rs.300/- from the complainant. After replacement of the battery, the technical staff of the OP no.1 had given an assurance that now no problem would be arisen in the aforesaid motorcycle, but even after replacement of battery the aforesaid problem till date has not been resolved permanently, even the complainant number of times visited the workshop of the OP no.1 with similar problem, but all in vain and lastly OP no.1 flatly refused to defect the fault and to repair the motorcycle permanently, as such complainant is entitled to get replace the aforesaid defective motorcycle with new one. The complainant approached to both the OPs and requested to replace the aforesaid defective motorcycle with new one, but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to replace the defective motorcycle in question with new one or to refund the sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- including accessories approximately to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its purchase till its actual realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of causing mental pain, agony and  harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 19.12.2022 of the Commission.

 3.            OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that upon receipt of the summons in the present complaint, OP no.2 enquired about the vehicle in question from OP no.1 upon which it was discovered that the complainant approached the OP no.1 for the first time on 23.03.2021 for the 1^st free service and service was done by the OP no.1. Later, the complainant for the 2^nd time reached out to OP no.1 on 21.07.2021, after usage of vehicle for 2447 Kms, for the running repairs which has been repaired by OP no.1. Again, the complainant approached the OP no.1 for 3^rd free service on 09.01.2021, after the usage of vehicle in question for 3735 Kms, and the service has provided by OP no.1. Again, complainant reached out to OP no.1 on 19.02.2022, after usage of vehicle in question for 5849 Kms, for the 4^th free service and also for vehicle stalling. The OP no.1 provided the general service as well as dealt vehicle stalling and the same time OP no.1 asked the complainant to provide the 2^nd key for the replacement of lock set but the same thing was not provided by the complainant. For the last time, complainant reached out to OP no.1 on 18.8.2022, after usage of vehicle in question for 8035kms, for the paid general service and stalling problem but after the general service the complainant took away the vehicle in question without giving opportunity to OP no.1 to resolve the stalling issue. OP no.1 recognized that stalling issue in the vehicle in question is due to mal-functioning in ignition switch so OP no.1 requested the complainant to deliver the vehicle to OP no.1 for the repair but complainant is not ready to visit OP no.1 for some reasons better known to him. Without giving opportunity to the OP no.1 to repair the vehicle, the complainant initiated the legal case with malafide intention of getting undue benefit from both OPs. After legal recourse representative of OP no.2 also requested the complainant to get his vehicle attended on 18.10.2022 but complainant confirmed to meet on 19.10.2022. Despite such confirmation, complainant did not appear on 19.10.2022 and also stopped answering the calls which were made by the representative of OP no.2. Even the representatives of OP no.1 sent communication to complainant to get his vehicle attended under warranty. Even then, the complainant did not bother to come despite follow ups from the OPs. It is further pleaded that the present dispute is between the complainant and OP no.1 on alleged defects that the complainant states are recurring but denying to visit OPs no.1 and 2 despite requests and reminders. Needless to mention, it is settled law that manufacturers and dealers are independent parties. They are governed by principal to principal relationship states that they are two distinct arties and the omission on the part of one party will not rope in the other party in the dispute. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question is with the complainant who himself is refusing to visit OP no.2 with the vehicle in question so that the mal-functioning of ignition switch could be cured. Complainant did not bother to come to OPs despite follow ups from OPs but filed this false and frivolous complaint with the sole intention to default OP no.2 when it is ready to replace/repair any part in the vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 is responsible to install new parts or repair the old ones on the event of defect of the product. Moreover, there is no condition whatsoever that could entitle the complainant of replacement of the product i.e. the vehicle in question or return the purchase price as has been asked vide the present complaint. The manufacturer is only responsible to replace the defective part of the vehicle in question. In the case in hand, OP no.2 has not denied its duty to supply parts to its authorized service centers at any instance. Besides, OP no.2 has gone a step ahead by insisting the complainant to come to OP no.1 for repair or replacement of defected part of vehicle in question but the complainant was least bothered to cooperate with the OP no.2. OP no.2 is only liable for manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question and no such issue exits in the present complaint. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot be held liable for any alleged defects in the concerned vehicle in the absence of any manufacturing defect. It is further pleaded that on 18.08.2022, the complainant brought the vehicle in question to the OP no.2 by saying that the vehicle in question had defects that were limited to stalling and asked for general service. By inspecting the vehicle, the OP no.1 came to conclusion that stalling problem is due to malfunctioning of ignition switch but after general service the complainant took away the vehicle and after that OP no.2 made multiple calls to complainant for the delivery of vehicle to OP no.2 so that defects i.e. malfunctioning of ignition switch will be cured. However, the complainant turned the request down for some reason. OP denied that there was any technical defect in the vehicle, If there was any technical defect, it is not possible to drive that vehicle in question for 2447 Kms without having any issues. It is further pleaded that OPs offered to rectify the defect, it is the complainant, who solely rejected the service. Besides, the complainant even exaggerating the number of services that has been done on the vehicle in question. Further, no expert evidence has been carried out to determine the nature of the alleged defect. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 06.02.2021 Ex.C1, copy of receipt dated 20.07.2021 Ex.C2, copy of loan account detail Ex.C3, copy of application regard loan contract repayment swap request Ex.C4, copy of signature verification of individual Ex.C5, copy of debit mandate forms of Tata Capital Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C9, copy of RC Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 09.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Sharma Ex.OP2/A, copy of resolution Ex.OP2/1, copy of relevant extract of the warranty terms Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2024 by suffering separate statement

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a motorcycle from the OP no.1. After 3-4 months of its purchase, complainant noticed that there is a mechanical defect in the aforesaid motorcycle. Complainant approached the OP no.1 several times and complained about the mechanical defect but OPs could not rectify the defects despite their best efforts. On 20.07.2021, the complainant again approached to the OP no.1 with similar problems, then OP no.1 had replaced the battery of the motorcycle. But even after the aforesaid problem could not be cured. Then complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective motorcycle with new one or to refund the cost of the motorcycle but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on 18.08.2022, the complainant brought the vehicle in question to the OP no.2 due to stalling problem. The said problem is due to malfunctioning of ignition switch so OP no.1 registered the complaint to deliver the vehicle for repair but complainant was not ready to repair the vehicle. If there was any technical defect in the vehicle, then there is not possible to drive the vehicle for 2447 Kms without having any issues. OPs are always ready to rectify the defect, if any, and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           The complainant has alleged that the vehicle in question was having an inherent manufacturing defect from its purchase. Complainant approached the OPs several times for rectifying the defect in the motorcycle. OPs had replaced the battery of the motorcycle but even after the problem in the motorcycle have not been resolved permanently. On the other hand, OP no.2 in its written version has stated that OPs are ready to replace/repair any part in the vehicle in question but complainant did not come to repair the vehicle despite repeated calls.

12.           The onus to prove that motorcycle was having manufacturing defect was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has not placed on file any expert report, without any expert report, it cannot be ascertained that vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect.  Complainant failed to get examined the vehicle from the authorized technical expert to find out the defect as alleged by the complainant. Further, complainant has also not moved application before the Commission for appointment of Technical Expert to examine the vehicle in question.

13.           However, there may be any defects in the vehicle. Hence, in view of the above and in the interest of justice and avoiding the further complication and litigation, complainant is hereby directed to handover the vehicle in question to the OP no.1 within 15 days from today and on receipt of the vehicle, OP no.1 is directed to remove the defects from the vehicle in question, if found to be manufacturing defect, free of costs, as pointed out by the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of vehicle. After rectifying the defects from the vehicle, if any, two engineers of the OP no.2 (manufacturer) would examine the vehicle and issue a certificate to the complainant with respect to removal of its defects. It is further made clear that if the defects are not removable and vehicle in question is not roadworthy condition then OP no.2 is directed to refund the sale price of the vehicle and in that eventuality, the complainant is also directed to handover the vehicle to the OPs and also get transferred the R.C. of vehicle in the name of the OPs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 16.10.2024   

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                   Member                          Member