Judgment : Dt.14.9.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Suman Kumar Mallick, residing at “Ayush Apartment, 3rd floor, Flat No.3A, 16/9, Becharam Chatterjee Road, Behala, Kolkata-700 061 against the Manager, Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Mexx World, (Authorised Dealers’ of Mahindra Two Wheelers), 76B, Block-E, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, OP No.1, The Manager, Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Mexx World,(Workshop), Mexx Corp. Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd., 75/9, S.N.Roy Road, Kolkata-700 038, OP No.2 and the Manager, Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Dd-1 Block, Plot No.18/2 (Part), M.I.D.C., Chinchoved, Pune, PIN-411 019 praying for a direction upon OP for exchanging the scooty Rodeo 125CC vide Engine No.PFEAE297589, Chasis No.MCDFRIBIAIF41910 and interest from the date of servicing till realization @ 16%p.a. and damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per year and Rs.30,000/- as cost of proceeding and any other relief..
Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a two wheeler from Mahendra Company named and style as “RODEO 125 CC” model scooty Red colour, vide Engine No.PFEAE297589, Chasis No.MCDFRIBIVAIF4190 from New Alipore, Kolkata, for a price of Rs.49,899/- on 7.7.2010.
Complainant is an LIC agent and the scooty was hypothecated to LICI. OP No.1issued two money receipts dt.7.7.2010 and another dt.9.7.2010 against registration of the vehicle, insurance and smart card in the name of the Complainant. After purchasing the two wheeler, Complainant got the two wheeler servicing at the authorized servicing centre and the last servicing was made on 16.7.2011. Further Complainant has stated that from 16.7.2011 to 29.10.2013 Complainant paid all the servicing charges. Complainant has also stated that from 29.10.2013 the two wheeler remained under the custody of OP No.1 & 2 till today. Complainant met the OP on several occasions. But, nothing could be done. Complainant has also stated that OPs failed to solve the problem of the Complainant and so Complainant suffered a lot and was compelled to file this case.
OP No.1(c) and OP No.2 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP Nos.1 & 2 has stated that the complaint is falsely filed and in order to squeeze compensation and litigation cost. This complaint has been made concocted. Whenever the Complainant came with the scooty the servicing was made and there was no defect in the scooty. Complainant had falsely alleged that the scooty was defective. So, OP Nos.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
OP No.3 has also filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP No.3 has stated that Complainant is guilty of suppression, misrepresentation and distortion of material facts. The scooters and motorcycles are manufactured undergo stringent quality checks and no compromise is made on the quality of the vehicles. Further, OP No.3 has stated that contention made out in all the paragraphs are baseless. So, this OP has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP Nos.1 & 2 filed questionnaire wherein this OP has put certain questions to Complainant. OP No.3 has also filed questionnaire against the Complainant’s affidavit-in-chief. Complainant replied to the questionnaire of the OPs. OPs filed affidavit affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for exchanging the scooty rodeo 125 CC, Engine No.PFEAE297589, Chasis No.MCDFRIBIVAIF41910.
In this regard, Complainant has made out a ground that the engine of the two wheeler was defective which was detected in 2013. Complainant has filed Xerox copies of the correspondences made between him and OPs. Now, the question is whether after a lapse of about two years, there is agreement between the purchaser and the manufacturer or dealer that the two wheeler would be replaced. Complainant failed to substantiate these allegations. At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for OPs submitted that after purchasing the two wheeler, it was used roughly as the Complainant was an LIC Development Officer and during that some defects cropped up for which OPs cannot be made liable. There is no document filed to prove the fact that even if the defects cropped up after a lapse of two years, the dealer or the manufacturer cannot be liable to replace the defective two wheeler.
As such, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled for this relief.
Complainant has prayed for interest @ 16%p.a. from the date of servicing till realization. It is of common prudence that in case of sale of any two wheeler, three services are provided free and thereafter the purchaser is required to pay the service charges. Complainant has not made it clear as to when he took his vehicle for servicing for which he paid and since then he is claiming interest @ 16% p.a. As such, Complainant is not entitled to the relief of interest also.
Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation cost.
On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply, it is not clear that the claim of Complainant is within the warranty period and what actual defect had taken place for which Complainant got aggrieved.
In such circumstances, Complainant does not appear to be entitled to any relief of compensation and litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
CC/589/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
