IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 4/S/2015. DATED : 07.06.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : MD. JAMSHED,
S/O. Md. Dil,
Vill. Dangujote, Binnabari,
P.O. & P.S.- Kharibari,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : SUBHANKAR SINGHA,
Kharibari Ashok Market Complex,
Bus Stand Road,
Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 427.
2. : SHANTI MOTORS,
Opp. Vishal Mega Mart,
Near Jaishree Weigh Bridge,
Burdwan Road,
Siliguri – 734 005.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.
FOR THE OP No. 2 : Sri Saurab Sarkar, advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Smt. Pratiti Bhattacharyya, Member.
The case of the complainant is brief is that the complainant had purchased a motorbike from OP No.1 on 01.01.2014. The OP No.1 is the sales authority at Khoribari and the OP No.2 is the dealer of Honda Scooters & Motorcycles India. After few days the motor bike started showing many defects such as problems in the clutch, Noisy gearbox, Faulty brakes, poor fuel efficiency and many more. For remedy the complainant went to the OP No.2 and as per suggestion of the OP No.2, the complainant kept the motor cycle to the OP No.2, but the defects prevailed. The complainant sent e-mail to the Hoonda two wheeler and OP No.2 and OP No.2 used to tell him to come to their workshop and get the problem solved but to no avail. Finding no other alternatives, the complainant has filed this case for proper relief.
Contd…….P/2
-:2:-
The case proceeds exparte against the OP No.1.
The OP No.2 filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. OP No.2 has stated that for first service on 06.02.2014, the complainant asked for checking the vehicle in question in general and the speed meter of the vehicle is not working. At the time of second servicing on 20.05.2014 the complainant disclosed the problem in rear brake, gear shifting problem, body vibration and head light adjust, he faced with the vehicle in question and the OP No.2 has always provided the required service and the complainant has accepted the delivery of the vehicle after being fully satisfied by the services of the OP No.2. The OP No.2 claims Job card also shows that and denies any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
Complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. Money Receipt marked and annexed as Annexure-1.
2. E-mails sent to Honda Scooters and Motorcycles India marked and annexed as Annexure-2.
Complainant has filed evidence in support of his contention.
OP No.2 has filed some principles of law.
Points for determination
1. Is the case maintainable ?
2. Is the complainant consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
3. Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Points Nos.1 & 2
The complainant filed original money receipt.
It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a motorbike named “Shine Rebel Red Mettallic” bearing Engine No.JC 36E 77994139 from the OP No.1 who is the sales authority at Khoribari, Dist.- Darjeeling and the OP No.2 the Shanti Motors is the dealer of Hoonda Scooters and Motorcycles India. So, the complainant is a consumer and the OPs are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, the point Nos.1 & 2 are affirmative.
Points Nos.3 & 4.
The complainant claims in his complaint that after few days of purchase the vehicle in question showed multiple defect. The complainant took the
Contd…….P/3
-:3:-
vehicle in question to the OP No.2 workshop for servicing. Original job cards filed by the OP shows that at the time of first servicing the complainant requested for Engine oil change, break adjustment , front and rear, clutch adjustment, mirror adjustment and specially requested for speed meter not working and general checking of the vehicle. The was purchased on 01.01.2014 and first servicing & delivery date was 06.02.2014 & delivered with full satisfaction. The first servicing was done after one month of purchasing the vehicle. At time of 2nd free service special request for R.R. brake not working properly, gear shifting problem, body vibration, H.1 adjust and general checking. Servicing delivery date was 20.05.2014 after three months of the 1st service and the same was delivered with full satisfaction of the complainant where the complainant signed in the job sheet. In 3rd servicing special requests were gear shifting problem, padel brake problem, tuning problem, body vibration problem, vehicle bubbling problem. Delivery date was 28.04.2014 after 3 months from the 2nd servicing. The vehicle was delivered on full satisfaction duly signed by the complainant. For 4th servicing the complainant placed the vehicle to the workshop of the OP No.2 on 23.09.2014 only 25 days after from the 3rd servicing with special request for gear shifting problem, vehicle vibration when 40 above speed (50 below) R.R. brake not work properly, vehicle not smooth, tunning low, head light focus goes up. In 1st and 2nd job sheet it was written in the column of repair advice/Action taken “OK”, ‘done’ and in third job sheet it was written that customer reported to our workshop that he is facing problem with gear of the vehicle after 1st and 2nd service on 065.02.2014 and 20.05.2014.............”. Complainant job card shows the remark that entire engine was opened and repaired date 24.09.2014, ‘gear easy reset’ etc.
From the above discussion, we found that the complainant faced problem with the vehicle in question just after purchasing the vehicle and when within one month 6 days from date of purchasing of the vehicle in question was taken to workshop for servicing and various problems raised when running Km of the vehicle was only 595 Km. After 3 months from the 1st servicing second servicing was done. From the 2nd servicing 20.05.2014 only 3 months 5 days later 3rd servicing was done i.e., 28.08.2014 and therefore on 23.09.2014 the vehicle needed for servicing. Each and every time of servicing new/same problems were arisen. When the OP No.2 each and every time
Contd…….P/4
-:4:-
solved the problem on full satisfaction of the complainant, then why the problems arose so frequently in the vehicle in question. The complainant claims in written notes of argument that the vehicle was not in order and it could not be rectified properly resulting in deficiency in service.
But it transpires that the vehicle in question had been manufactured by the company, the OPs are merely dealer or service centre. Original manufacturer has not been made party. Secondly, without explanation from manufacturer, no satisfactory conclusion can be made. Thirdly, there is no report of automobile engineer regarding the workable condition of the motor bike in question. At least technical motor vehicle inspector’s report was necessary and that so in presence of the manufacturer of the vehicle. Without manufacturer’s presence the matter i.e., claim of complainant cannot settled down.
So, there is no cogent evidence regarding ‘defect of vehicle’. Accordingly evidence in record is not cogent and reliable. The material is insufficient to hold that complainant has able to prove his case, as such case is not proved. So, we are of opinion that the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.4/S/2015 is dismissed on contest against the OP No.2 and exparte dismissed against OP No.1.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -Member- -President-
