Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/58/2017
C.Sreenivasulu, S/o c.Rajendra Chetty - Complainant(s)
Versus
Sri Gopal Auto mobiles, Rep. by its Manager/Office In charge - Opp.Party(s)
K.Syamala
02 Nov 2018
ORDER
Filing Date: 23.11.2017
Order Date:02.11.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN
C.C.No.58/2017
Between
C.Sreenivasulu,
S/o. C.Rajendra Chetty,
Hindu, aged about 25 years,
Private Employee,
D.No.1-6-601, Backside of the Fire Station,
Indira Nagar,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District. … Complainant.
And
1. Sri Gopal Auto Mobiles,
Rep. by its Manager / Office In-charge,
D.No.5-179, Opp. Agriculture College,
Peruru,
Chandragiri Road,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District.
2. Sri Gopal Auto Mobiles,
House of Heros,
Rep. by its Proprietor / Office In-charge,
No.19-3-13(M), Renigunta Road,
Tirupati – 517 501.
3. Hero Motor Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Regional Manager / Office In-charge,
Sai Odissy Buildings,
3rd floor, Near Guru Nanak Colony,
Vijayawada.
4. Hero Motor Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director / Office In-charge,
No.34, Community Centre,
Basant Lok,
Vasanth Vihar,
New Delhi – 110 057. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 28.09.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Kanchi Syamala , counsel for complainant, and Sri.S.Zakeer Hussain, counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and Sri. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section –12(1) of C.P.Act 1986, with the following allegations:
2. The complainant is an employee working in private college situated at Rangampet, which is far away from his residential place. He purchased Hero Motor Cycle PASSION PRO bike from opposite party No.1 at the cost of Rs.59,000/-, and on 13.04.2016 he made down payment of Rs.21,036/- vide receipt No.323 dt:13.04.2016 issued by opposite party No.1. For the balance amount, he obtained loan from HDFC Bank, Tirupati, agreeing to repay the same in 18 installments at the rate of Rs.2,456/- (EMI). The vehicle bearing Chassis No.MBCHA 10BSFHL 33718, and Engine No.HA 10 FVHL 36722, was delivered on the same day to the complainant. The complainant availed 1st service of the vehicle on 07.05.2016. The bike condition was normal when it was given for 1st service and Rs.506/- was charged by opposite party No.1 for the said service. But the vehicle started giving trouble thereafter. Whenever the bike slowdown, automatically it stopped suddenly, and the speedo meter also not working properly. The said problem was informed to opposite party No.1, but they stated that since it is a new vehicle some problems may arise and by regular use automatically the problems get be solved. One week after the 1st service, again the same problem arose and for that on 18.07.2016, he approached opposite party No.1 for 2nd service. The opposite party mechanic told that it is regular practice that their showrooms intentionally slow down the RPM of new bikes to control the speed and thereafter adjusted the RPM to normal mode. On that day they collected Rs.594/- towards service charges. Likewise the same problem cropped-up time and again even after 2nd service. The complainant was forced to approach opposite party No.1 to rectify the problem on 26.12.2016, 29.12.2016 and also on 14.03.2017, opposite party No.1 on one occasion changed the speedo meter vide bill No.824, on another occasion silencer was changed on 3.12.2016. On 14.03.2017 opposite party No.1 charged Rs.325/- towards service charges. But 3 days after the 5th service i.e. on 14.03.2017, same problem continued. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 thrice in a week, but the problem remained without rectification. On 09.04.2017 at about 8.45 p.m., when he was going to his friend’s house on bike, it stopped, at that juncture he made a call to opposite party No.1 and immediately a mechanic was sent to rectify the problem temporarily. On the very next day, complainant approached opposite party No.1 and one of the parts of the vehicle was changed to rectify the problem. Again after one week he faced the same problem on 22.05.2017. On that occasion 1st opposite party changed petrol pipe. Fed-up with the acts of the opposite parties 1 and 2, he addressed a letter to opposite parties 1 to 4 on 10.06.2017 and the same was acknowledged by opposite parties 1 to 4. They gave reply with false allegations. One Mr.Arvind from Vijayawada contacted over phone by stating that he is representing 3rd opposite party and gave assurance to help the complainant, but thereafter he did not do anything. Finally on 08.07.2017 opposite party No.2 sent a mail with false allegations. The complainant suffered mental agony due to frequent troubles given by the bike inspite of several services and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 in rectifying the bike problem permanently. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No.1 to replace the bike, but they did not bother to replace the vehicle. A legal notice was caused on 10.10.2017 calling upon the opposite parties 1 to 4 to replace the defective bike with new one. A reply was given by opposite parties 1 and 2 with false contentions. The complainant therefore claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to him due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Apart from that he is seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the vehicle.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed the written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.2. Opposite parties 3 and 4 filed common written version.
4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended as follows – At the outset complaint averments are denied. The averment that the subject vehicle (bike) was giving trouble to complainant and for that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 several times, but the problem could not be rectified, and on account of that complainant suffered mental agony is denied. It is admitted that complainant has purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1. The documents filed by the complainant in the form of invoices disclose that engine oil was changed and some un-warranty parts were changed, and that the vehicle had undergone five free services. Infact document No.6 dt:29.12.2016 shows that speedo meter was changed by opposite party No.1, due to speedo meter vibration and poor pickup and the cost of the speedo meter was charged. The defect was rectified and no amount was charged for the service. The opposite party No.1 himself conducted test ride of the subject vehicle and complainant also conducted test ride and thereafter took delivery of the vehicle on 29.12.2016. The document filed by the complainant discloses that engine oil was changed and charges for un-warranty parts only taken. The services were done free of cost for a newly purchased vehicle. There is no question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant repeatedly averred that vehicle was stopped frequently and could not start thereafter. If such is the problem, no one could have used it for years together. The vehicle was lastly serviced on 25.05.2017 and thereafter he did not bring the vehicle to the showroom of opposite party No.1for servicing. So, it can be safely concluded that vehicle is in proper condition. The complainant approached the Forum with unclean hands making frivolous allegations against the opposite parties. No proof is filed supporting the contention of complainant that there is mechanical defect in the vehicle. Infact opposite parties 1 and 2 rendered services and attended the repairs of the vehicle whenever the complainant brought the vehicle to the showroom. There is no defect in the vehicle and as such question of deficiency in service on their part does not arise. When there is no defect in the vehicle, question of replacing the vehicle or refunding the cost of the vehicle does not arise. As per owner’s manual, it clearly shows that there is no provision of replacing of the vehicle and if at all any defect is observed, particular part will be replaced, provided such defect has not resulted due to misuse and improper handling by the user of the vehicle. The complaint is therefore not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. Opposite parties 3 and 4 contended as follows – While admitting the fact that the complainant has purchased one Hero motorcycle Passion Pro bike for Rs.59,000/- from opposite party No.1 on installment basis and made down payment of Rs.21,036/- and for remaining amount availed loan from HDFC bank. They denied the rest of the allegations. Due to improper maintenance of the vehicle only, the said problems arose. The visit of complainant to opposite party No.1 showroom on different dates as mentioned in the complaint for rectifying the bike problem and for free service is denied. Opposite party No.3 properly instructed opposite party No.2 to rectify the bike problem. The complainant was very much satisfied by the services rendered by opposite party No.3, but as an afterthought the complainant filed this complaint for wrongful gain. Opposite party No.3 is manufacturer of Hero motorcycles at their factory and all the vehicles manufactured by them should pass various tests with regard to the quality of the components, engine alignment, engine function and its components and component assemblies, electro mechanical parts, checks, and test ride etc. This opposite party manufactures motorcycles in compliance of M.V.Act and its rules, notifications etc. In the course of business opposite party No.1furnishes bonus ‘user manual’ in which the user of the motor vehicle is guided through various information such as features in the vehicle model, riding tips, maintenance instructions, warranty and services, technical specification of the vehicle, general information etc. and also provided with warranty services to the owner of the motorcycle, free and paid services are provided through service centers / dealers. The motorcycles are taken up for dispatch to dealers only after completion of quality control test with regard to the efficiency of the engine and its performance. At the time of selling the vehicle they will inform all the features of the motorcycle and user instructions and the services offered by the service centre before delivering the vehicle to the purchaser. A pre-deliver inspection is done at the dealer’s place, so as to ensure the vehicle is delivered in good condition. The dealer also offer free test ride of the vehicle for the respective purchasers before purchasing the vehicle and after due satisfaction of the purchasers only they will receive the full price of the vehicle and deliver the same to the purchaser. It is the responsibility of the complainant to get the services from time to time as stipulated in the service coupons. As per the warranty conditions the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle or refund of purchase price. If any component is found to be defective, then the opposite parties shall replace the defective component only and not the vehicle. In the free service coupon enclosed in the service manual, it is clearly mentioned that replacement or change of oil will be at customer expenses. The complainant did not avail free services. The problem of the complainant is only trivial in nature and there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such there is no need to pay any damages to the complainant. The complainant is using the vehicle extensively and with a malafide intention to claim new vehicle, he filed this frivolous complaint against the opposite parties. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the claim of the complainant.
6. The complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of opposite parties one S.Venkatrami Reddy, Manager of Sri Gopal Auto Mobiles, Perur branch, Tirupati, filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1. Written arguments were filed by both parties.
7. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?
8. Point:- The contention of counsel for complainant is that the vehicle Hero Motor Cycle PASSION PRO purchased by the complainant started giving trouble after its purchase and several times the complainant approached the showroom of opposite party No.1 for service and rectifying the defect, but the defect could not be rectified and due to that the complainant suffered mental agony, as he could not go to office in time, since the vehicle stopped frequently and could not start. It is the further contention of the counsel for complainant that the documents filed by the complainant show that the dates on which the complainant took the vehicle to the showroom for service and rectifying the defect. Ex.A1 is delivery challan No.315 dt:13.04.2016 issued by opposite party No.l for Rs.21,036/- towards cost of the vehicle. Ex.A2 is true copy of invoice / 1st service bill dt:07.05.2016 issued by opposite party No.1for Rs.506/-. Ex.A3 is true copy of invoice / 2nd service bill dt:18.07.2016 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.594/-. Ex.A4 is true copy of invoice / 3rd service bill dt:01.10.2016 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.511/-. Ex.A5 is true copy of invoice /4th service bill dt:27.12.2016 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.426/-. Ex.A6 is photocopy of job card bill No.824 from Sri Gopal Automobiles, Tirupati, pertaining to speedo meter cum bill for change of silencer dt:29.12.2016. Ex.A7 is true copy of invoice / 5th service bill dt:14.03.2017 issued by opposite party for Rs.325/-. Ex.A8 is true copy of service invoice / bill dt:22.05.2017 for Rs.15/-. Ex.A9 is letter addressed by the complainant to opposite parties 2 to 4 dt:10.06.2017 with receipts 3 in number. Ex.A10 is acknowledgement cards 2 in number. Ex.A11 is mail sent by opposite party No.2 dt:08.07.2017. Ex.A12 is office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 4 with postal receipts 4 in number dt:10.10.2017. Ex.A13 is original copy of acknowledgement cards 4 in number. Ex.A14 is letter sent by opposite parties 1 and 2 dt:28.10.2017. Opposite parties marked Ex.B1, which is photocopy of vehicle history card.
9. Admittedly, there is no expert evidence to pinpoint the mechanical defect if any of the vehicle. Even as per the complaint averments whenever complainant visited opposite party showroom with the problem, they attended the problem and rectified it, but each time they charged some amount for replacement of parts. There is no specific averment by complainant that there is mechanical defect in the vehicle. It is simply stated that vehicle stopped suddenly in the course of driving and thereafter could not start. Ex.B1 which is history card of the vehicle shows that when the vehicle was brought to the showroom for some repairs, on 14.03.2017 lubricants were changed, engine oil changed, some parts were also replaced, which were not covered in the warranty. The contention of the opposite parties that opposite party No.1, charged cost for new parts which are not covered by warranty, is supported by Ex.B1. It is not the case of the complainant that opposite parties did not attend the repairs of the vehicle whenever he took the vehicle to the workshop. Even according to the complainant each time when the vehicle was taken to service centre, they have attended the problem and some parts were also replaced. Hence, we are of the view that question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise in this case.
10. In the absence of expert evidence, it cannot be said that there is mechanical defect in the vehicle. It is for the complainant to show that due to mechanical defects in the vehicle, he could not use the vehicle. It is evident that complainant has been using the vehicle and it is not kept idle. The documentary evidence filed by the complainant is mostly in the nature of invoices and there is no dispute about those documents. Ex.A11 e-mail dt:08.07.2017 shows that when the complainant brought the vehicle for 4th service on 26.12.2016 and informed them about the problem in the vehicle, the manager promised to rectify the defects and further informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle on 27.12.2016, and accordingly they rectified all the defects in the vehicle. Further test drive of the vehicle was conducted by the Service Manager personally along with the complainant and that the complainant upon satisfying the service rendered by the mechanics of opposite party No.1, took delivery of the vehicle. The problem appears to be trivial in nature as stated by the opposite parties and sometimes the problems may arise due to lack of driving skills while driving the vehicle or due to improper maintenance of the vehicle also. Hence, we are of the view that there is no substance in the complaint filed by the complainant with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2nd day of November, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.
PW-1: C. Sreenivasulu (Chief Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.
RW-1: S. Venkatrami Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-2: Aravind Gopalan (Verified/Proof Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Photo copy of Delivery Challan/Receipt/ Bill No. 315 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs. 21,036/- Dt: 13.04.2016. | |
True copy of Invoice/1st Service Bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.506/-. Dt: 07.05.2016. | |
True copy of Invoice/2nd Service Bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.594/-. Dt:18.07.2016. | |
True copy of Invoice/3rd Service Bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.511/-. Dt: 01.10.2016. | |
True copy of Invoice/4th Service Bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.426/-. Dt: 27.12.2016. | |
Photo copy of Job Card Bill No. 824 from Sri Gopal Automobiles, Tirupati , pertaining to Speedo meter cum Bill for change of Silencer. Dt: 29.12.2016. | |
True copy of Invoice/5th Service Bill issued by Opposite Party for Rs.325/-. Dt: 14.03.2017. | |
True copy of Service Invoice/Bill for Rs.15/- Dt: 22.05.2017. | |
Letter addressed by the complainant to opposite parties 2 to 4, Dt: 10.06.2017 with receipts 3 in Number. | |
Acknowledgements Cards 2 in Number. | |
Mail sent by opposite party No.2. Dt: 08.07.2017. | |
Office copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 to 4 with postal receipts 4 in Number. Dt: 10.10.2017. | |
Original copy of Acknowledgement Cards 4 in Number. | |
Letter sent by opposite party No.1 and 2. Dt: 28.10.2017. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Photo copy of Vehicle History Card. |
Sd/-
President (FAC)
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The complainant.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.