Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/607/2006

Mr. M.K.K.Harikrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Jai Autos Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Gunasekaran

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  29.11. 2006

                                                                        Date of Order :  11.07.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 607 /2006

MONDAY THIS  11^TH   DAY OF JULY  2016

 

Mr. M.K.K. Harikrishnan,

No.4/340, Swaminathan Nagar,

6^th Street,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai 680 001.                                         .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  M/s. Sri Jai Autos Private Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

Mr. Jayachandran,

No.11, 1^st Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,

Chennai – 20.

 

2. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Rep. by its Area Manager,

Mr.B.Krishnamoorthy,

No.6, IInd Floor,

Habibullah Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 17.

 

3. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman,

Mr.Rahul Bajaj,

Mumbai – Pune Road,

Akrudi, Pune – 411 035.                              ..Opposite parties 

 

 

For the Complainants                 :   M/s. R. Gunasekaran  

For the opposite parties 1 to 3     :   M/s. K. Ganesan.

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to replace the defective motor-cycle or to return the cost of the motor cycle Rs.39,115/-  with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.   

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II   

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

            The  complainants submit that he had purchased a Bajaj CT 100 DLX motor cycle from the opposite parties on 6.1.2006 by paying a total consideration of Rs.31,115/- which includes cost, comprehensive insurance, road tax and other incidental charges.   The complainant further submit that he found some manufacturing defects where he alleged and states because of the defects in the vehicle while using the said vehicle he had developed neck pain and some other physical strain.  Complainant reported to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and made several visits.  The complainant had discomfort in riding the motor cycle as a result of defect in the vehicle he had developed pain in hands neck and legs and part of his body.  Because of this temporary disability from 7.1.2006 to 11.7.2006 he had incurred monitory loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,805/- and he was complaining, there was no proper response from the opposite parties in rectifying the defects.  As such, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.    As such the complainant sought for claim to replace the defective motor-cycle or to return the cost of the motor cycle of Rs.39,115/-  with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.      Hence the complaint.

Written version of opposite parties  are briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite parties deny all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that still the complainant is continuously using the vehicle.  Further, periodical warranty services prescribed for the vehicle, has been not taken at appropriate time and therefore, the complainant has violated the conditions of usage of the vehicle which is stated in the book-let called “Owner’s Manual” which was given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle.    The opposite parties further submit that in this connection, it is not out of place to mention here that the vehicle was serviced for the first time on 27.1.2006 and the complainant’s relative one Mr.Vijayaraghavan had taken delivery of the vehicle after having fully satisfied about the service on the vehicle and duly signed the satisfaction memo.   It is also out of place to mention here, that the complainant’s vehicle had been thoroughly inspected and tested for a long drive viz more than 12 kms on two occasions viz on 4.2.2006 and 11.3.2006 and found the performance of the vehicle satisfactory.    The 1^st opposite party has also promptly and thoroughly inspected and tested the vehicle by an qualified and well experienced Senior Engineers.   During the inspection trial and road test, the performance of the vehicle was found O.K in all respects and the road worthy.   The complainant had also taken delivery of the vehicle after fully satisfying himself about the good condition of the vehicle.    The 1^st opposite party had also promptly and thoroughly inspected and tested the vehicle by a qualified and well experienced Senior Engineers.   Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties.   Therefore this compliant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.             

3.       The complainant had filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A41 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties  filed  and no document was marked on the side of the  opposite parties.    

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

 

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A41  were marked on the side of the complainants.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     The complainant had purchased a Bajaj CT 100 DLX motor cycle from the opposite parties on 6.1.2006 by paying a total consideration of Rs.31,115/- which includes cost, comprehensive insurance, road tax and other incidental charges.     It is contended that the complainant found some manufacturing defects where he alleged and states because of the defects, he had developed neck pain and some other physical strain where he had complainted to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and made several visits.  He had visited to the 1^st opposite party who is a dealer and  2^nd opposite party who is the service provider and 3^rd opposite party who is the manufacturer.   The complaint lodged with the opposite parties the complainant had discomfort in riding the motor cycle as a result he had developed pain in hands neck and legs and part of his body.  Because of this temporary disability from 7.1.2006 to 11.7.2006  he had incurred monitory loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,805/- and he was complaining there was no proper response from the opposite parties in rectifying the defects and hence his prayer was to refund the amount of Rs.39,115/- collected towards cost of the vehicle and Rs.1,00,00/- towards loss of income and Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.11,690/- for other incidental.

7.     The opposite parties denied the allegations brought out by the complainant and furnished under Sec.26 (a) of the CORPA 1986, request the complainant to be dismissed and it is brought to the notice of this forum, the complainant was continuously using the vehicle under his possession and the opposite parties rendered their service as prescribed in the owner’s manual given to the complainant and the complainant had availed the free services 1^st on 21.7.2006 and subsequent check up were made on 4.2.2006 and 11.3.2006 and drove the vehicle as a long drive for test more than 12 k.ms and found it was satisfactory.   The complainant had not established neither any defect in the vehicle nor any deficiency in service established with cogent evidence.   The opposite party had checked the vehicle by the Senior Engineer and during the inspection the vehicle was found to be good and road worthy.   The averment and allegation brought by the complainant the opposite party contended that it is figment of imagination of the complainant with an ulterior motive.  The learned counsel of the opposite parties had requested the forum to send the vehicle to obtain an expert opinion under CMP 204/2007  by which the MIT had submitted thier report stating that “test on road it was found that the vehicle is having slight unbalancing at a speed higher than 60 k.m. per hour.   These defects can be rectified by a method called wheel balancing.   As such it is felt that the vehicle is road worthy and free from defects”.     But the complainant had not taken any initiative and he was prolonged the case intentionally, after a lapse of five years he presented a Memo calling upon again a test report in order to protect the proceedings after filing the proof affidavit and written arguments of the opposite parties.   Hence it is requested by the opposite parties  to dismiss the case stating the complainant had not substantiate adequate evidence required to explain the defects found in the vehicle.    In order to get wrongful gains the complainants had delayed and giving false allegations on the opposite parties. 

8.     Pursuant on the complaint, proof affidavit, written version oral arguments and expert opinion and documents  submitted to this forum on careful scrutiny on the records we found 1) the opposite party never disputed about the consideration paid by the complainant to the opposite parties (Ex.A1 & Ex.A2).  2)  The allegations made by the complainant is purely pertaining to his body pain resulted out of the driving of the newly purchased vehicle and seeking remedy is more emphasis given on physical strain rather than rectification to the defects in the vehicle (Ex.A8 to Ex.A16).   3) It is found the complainant took treatment with PGK Poly Clinic, Chennai where his treatment diagnosed “left cervical Radiculopathy cervical  sponrylosis”  the lab report of Sneha Laboratory Service, Chennai reveals that “ Degenerative changes with Osteophytes formation which clearly explains from the medical literature the cause of degeneration will arise natural aging, degenerative disc disease, Obesity, Improper use, Overexertion, Osteoarthritis”.    The intervertebral disc that cushion the vertebrae tend to wear down over time, whether it’s because of de-hydration within the necleus or degeneration of the cartilaginous fibers of the outer wall.   It is found the pain generated to the complainant and the treatment undergone by him clearly proves, it has not arisen out of the driving of the vehicle purchased from the opposite party.  

9.     Under section 2 (1) (g) of CORRA 1986 “deficiency means  any fault, imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.   The opposite parties attended the defects called by the complainant and the complainant neither informed the defects nor disputed after service any of the problem that he found other than the service already attended. 

10.    In order to find out the manufacturing defect the forum has directed the complainant to surrender the vehicle for test drive with MIT Chennai and their report reveals the vehicle is roadworthy and free from defects.  Based on the expert opinion the opposite party has not provided a defective vehicle to the consumer and the evidence provided by MIT is adequate to substantiate the opposite parties had not provided a defective product and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and by the service provider and the complainant cannot make frivolous complaint in order to make wrongful gain and not amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are not made liable for compensation is acceptable.   Therefore we are of the consider view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

               Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  11^th day  of  July  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 3.1.2006    - Copy of Cash receipt.

Ex.A2- 6.1.2006    - Copy of vehicle invoice.

Ex.A3- 6.1.2006    - Copy of delivery challan.

Ex.A4- 6.1.2006    - Copy of Debit note.

Ex.A5- 6.1.2006    - Copy of credit bill.

Ex.A6- 6.1.2006    - Copy of vehicle finance.

Ex.A7- 6.1.2006    - Copy of certificate of registration.

Ex.A8- 6.1.2006    - Copy of certificate of insurance.

Ex.A9- 25.1.2006  - Copy of letter by complainant to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A10- 29.1.2006         - Copy of P.K.G. Clinic Medical Prescription.

Ex.A11- 30.1.2006         - Copy of letter by complainant to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A12- 30.1.2006         - Copy of letter of complainant to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A13- 5.2.2006  - Copy of P.G.K. Clinic Medical prescription.

Ex.A14- 5.2.2006  - Copy of Cash receipt by Sneha Laboratory Service.

Ex.A15- 6.2.2006  - Copy of cash receipt by P.G.K Poly Clinic.

Ex.A16- 6.2.2006  - Copy of prescription by P.G.K. polyclinic.

Ex.A17- 6.2.2006  - Copy of letter by complainant to Area Manager Service

                              Akrudi, Pune.

Ex.A18- 5.2.2006  - Copy of Radiologist report.

Ex.A19- 8.2.2006  - Copy of letter from Mr.G.K. Shency Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Ex.A20- 14.2.2006         - Copy of Postal receipt & Ack. Card.

Ex.A21- 19.2.2006         - Copy of record of Physiotherapy treatment.

Ex.A22- 20.2.2006         - Copy of letter from 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A23- 23.2.2006         - Copy of letter from Regional Service Manager, Bajaj Auto

                             Ltd.,

Ex.A24- 11.3.2006         - Copy of letter from Area Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

                              T.Nagar, Chennai.-17.

Ex.A25- 18.3.2006 – Copy of letter from the complainant to Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

                              Pune.

Ex.A26- 18.3.2006         -  Copy of Courier receipts.

Ex.A27- 21.4.2006         -  Copy of letter from complainant to Deputy General

                              Manager, Pune.

Ex.A28- 2.5.2006  -  Copy of letter from the complainant to Managing Director

                              (or) Chairman Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune.

 

Ex.A29- 13.5.2006         - Copy of letter from Assistant Manager, Service Support

                             Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune.

 

Ex.A30- 16.5.2006         - Copy of letter from Area Manager, Service-2 wheeler,

                              Bajaj Auto Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai.

Ex.A31- 22.2.2006         - Copy of STD Calls to opposite party, Bajaj Auto Ltd

 

Ex.A32- 24.4.2006         - Copy of courier receipts

Ex.A33- 2.7.2006  - Copy of STD Phone calls receipts.

Ex.A34- 3.7.2006  - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A35- 5.7.2006  - Copy of courier receipts.

Ex.A36- 7.7.2006  - Copy of proof of deliver issued by courier service

Ex.A37- 17.7.2006         - Copy of reply sent by the counsel for the opposite parties.

Ex.A38-       -       - Copy of compact DISC one number.

Ex.A39- 3.3.2008  - Copy of Test report from Auto Mobile Engineering Depart.

                             MIT., Chrompet, Chennai.

Ex.A40- 6.1.2006  - Copy of registration certificate, NOC, Driving License,

                             Insurance Package Policy  of subject defective motor cycle.

 

Ex.A41- 20.3.2000         - Copy of Registration certificate, with invoice, Driving

                             License of the complainant

 

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-   

 

         .. Nil ..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.