Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/16/2019

Mr Nanjeet Singh S/O- Late Yashwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREYASRI MOTERS - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA.

                                                          

C.C.NO-16/2019

 

Mr Manjeet Singh,

      S/O:  Late Yashwant Singh,

      At- Dharamsalapada, Belpahar,

      PO/PS-Belpahar,Dist : Jharsuguda.                                         ..……Complainants.

     

Versus

 

1.  SHREYASRI MOTORS,

At- Ainthapali, NH-6, Near Madanawa,

P.O/P.S-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.

 

2.  ROYAL ENFIELD &

Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd, 407 4th Floor,

 Nirmala Plaza,-Bhubaneswar-751009                ……..…………Opp. Parties.

 

            Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant           :-         Self.               

For the Opp. Party No-1     :-         Sri P.K Bohidar, Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P-2                                    :-         None.

 

 Present:-     1. Shri  Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President.

                         2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).

 

Date of Hearing:- 17.11.2021, Date of Order: 02.12.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a Bullet 350 vehicle from the O.P-1 on dtd.09.07.2018 availing finance from bank. He has paid an amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- towards the full and final consideration of the Bullet. After one month of purchase of the Bullet on dtd.09.08.2018, the Complainant observed some sound was coming from the engine of the Bullet and he informed the O.P-1, who repaired it accordingly. The same problem was again observed just after one month and the Complainant this time left the Bullet in the Garage of the O.P-1. The O.P-1 changed the CRANK of the said Bullet and delivered it to the Complainant on dtd. 02.11.2018. The Bullet was again left with the O.P-1 for repairing when it regularly given trouble and the Complainant has for the last time visited the O.P-1 on dtd. 15.02.2019 to get the bullet repaired and told that the engine sound will not come after the vehicle run for 2000-3000 kms but the Complainant is not satisfied with the O.P-1. The Bullet is still with the O.P-1 and the O.P-1 is not able to eradicate the defect in the Bullet which amount to Deficiency in services by the O.P-1.  Being the manufacturer of the said vehicle the O.P-2 is made party to the case.

 As per the O.P-1, he is the Proprietor of SHREYASRI MOTORS. During the second servicing the alleged defect was located in the said Bullet and the Complainant was requested to seek for technical information from the manufacturing company (O.P-2) who suggested the O.P-1 to take help of the HELP DESK of the O.P-2. The Help Desk of O.P-2 detected the problem and suggested for replacement of the Crank Shaft. Accordingly the Crank Shaft was replaced along with other necessary repair through skilled hands in presence of the Complainant. The noise level of the running engine was measured which was within the permissible limit of the manufacturing company and the Complainant has signed on the job Card after being satisfied and took delivery of the Bike. The Complainant brought the same bike on dtd. 09.02.2019 to the O.P-1 for the same complain of noise  from the engine  and after trial run by skilled mechanics of the O.P-1 no problem was detected and noise level was within permissible limits. The O.P-1 has demonstrate the measurement of noise level mechanically and tried to convince the Complainant but he was not mentally prepared to the technical explanation of the O.P-1 but demanded replacement of the entire engine which is totally baseless. The O.P-1 has not told that there will be no noise after running of 2,000-3,000 kms. The Complainant has unnecessarily left the Bike with O.P-1 although the repair work is over. As the O.P-1 has not committed any deficiency in service hence the Complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 The notice to the O.P-2 was returned unserved with a postal remark “LEFT”. Hence as per section 65(4) of C.P Act-2019 the notice is deemed to be served and made the O.P-2 exparte in this case.  Hearing conducted in absence of the O.P-2.      

The O.P, despite of service of notice he did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted ex parte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Bullet 350 vehicle from the O.P-1 a dealer at Sambalpur on dtd. 09.07.2018 on payment of consideration. The Complainant run the said Bullet for very short period of one month but from the second month the vehicle started defects in the Engine giving abnormal sound which was immediately brought to the notice of the opposite parties. Even after repairs, the Complainant had to take the vehicle several times for curing the defects for one after the other. At the time when the Crank of the engine was replaced. This was taken out by the service engineers of the opposite parties which does not warrant any technical expertise. This matter was not denied by the O.P-1  at any time. The motor bike run only 6,117 kilometers. Further in short, the Engine sound was persisting. The complainant had to approach the O.Ps service station several times which is evident from the job card itself. The complainant is not in a position to use the vehicle properly and the complainant incurred financial loss and he had to suffer mental agony also. An observation was made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Philips Mampillil vrs. Premier Automobile Limited and Anr”. On 27 th January 2004 that if the vehicle is sent for repair time and again and cannot be repaired there is no need further expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect. Supreme Court of India In the case of “Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Susheel Kumar Gobagitra  and another (2006) 4SCC 644” has held that “where defects in various parts of a Car are established ,direction for replacement of the car would not be justified. Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts are called for”.  In the case of “Surendra Kumar Jain  Vrs. R.C Bhargaba  & others {III(2006)CPJ 382(NC)” the radiator was found to be leaking from the bottom tank and had been replaced , this commission  had taken the view that  “minor defects cannot be said to be manufacturing defect”. Hence the O.Ps are deficient in providing necessary after sale services and are liable to replace the Engine of the Bullet and we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective Engine of the Bullet Motorcycle and provide him a brand new Engine of same make and model. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.     

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 2^nd  day of December-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

 

MEMBER(W).                                                                                  PRESIDENT.

                                                      Dictated and Corrected

                                                                      By me.

 

 

 

 

  PREIDENT