DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 3rd day of November, 2018

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

C.D Case No. 112 of 2016

Pradeep Mohakud

S/o Late Bhaskar Chandra Mohakud

Vill: Somanathpur

Po: Parbatipur

Via: Balikhand

Ps: Simulia

Dist: Balasore​                                                       ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. The Manager,

M/S Das Motors (Code No. OR 15001)

Authorized Dealer, Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

At: Tahasil Road, Kacheri Bazar

Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha

2. General Manager,

Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

Commercial Complex- II, Sector- 49-50

Golf Course Extension Road,

Gurgaon, Harayana- 122018

                                                      …………………………..Opp. Parties

Advocate For the Complainant: Sri N.C. Barik & Others

Advocate For the O.Ps: Sri D.R. Jena & Others

Date of hearing: 16.01.2018

Date of order: 03.11.2018

SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

That, the complainant has alleged against the O.Ps having aggrieved with their deficiency of service caused towards him. The brief fact of the complainant case is that the complainant has purchased one new Honda CB-SHINE (CBF 125F) motor cycle having Engine No. JC65E70347834 and Chassis No. ME4JC651KF7236228, from the OP No. 1 Das Motors, the authorized dealer of Honda Motor Cycle and Scoter India Pvt. Ltd. on dt. 01.11.2015 on payment rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred twenty eight only (Rs 58,728/-)to the OP No. 1 is the purchased receipt of the motor cycle. After purchasing the aforesaid motor the complainant has registered the aforesaid vehicle in Regional Transport Office, Bhadrak vide Regd. No. OD-22D 9325 on dt. 03.11.2015 is the registration certificate issued by the registering authority, M.V Dept. Bhadrak. The aforesaid motor cycle has been hypothecated by H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. and the complainant has purchasing the said motor cycle Bank loan. After purchased of the aforesaid motor cycle the complainant has done servicing in due time as per the instruction of the company through the servicing dealer copy of the service record has been filed. After one month of using the aforesaid motor cycle by the complainant some defect found in the engine of the said motor cycle. Rough sound came out of the engine on riding of the said motor cycle and the complainant felt uneasy to run the aforesaid motor cycle on the road and crowded place, for which the complainant approached the OP No. 1 and told him about the defect of the vehicle. After hearing from the complainant, the manager of M/S Das Motors (the OP No. 1) suggested to check the motor cycle by the authorized mechanic deployed in his showroom/workshop. Accordingly the complainant on dt. 05.12.2015 checked the motor cycle by the authorized mechanic of the OP No. 1 and the mechanic after checking suggested that “the bore position of the aforesaid motor cycle is defective and it will be changed”. The OP No. 1 told that as the bore position is not available in his showroom and as and when it will be available they will inform the complainant on telephonic message and he will come with the vehicle and the said defective bore position will be replaced by a new one shortly and as per the suggestion of the OP No. 1 and his mechanic the complainant came back. In this way the OP No. 1 delayed one month and after receiving the telephonic message from the OP No. 1 the complainant arrived at the showroom of the OP No. 1 with his motor cycle and requested the OP No. 1 to change the defective bore position of his motor cycle. According to the instruction the OP No. 1 his mechanic further checked the motor cycle and told that, bore position is ok, only bore piston ring will be changed and accordingly the mechanic of the OP No. 1 changed the ring of the bore position of the motor cycle on dt. 22.01.2016.

The some defect in engine found further on riding of the vehicle and the same rough sound came out of the vehicle on riding of it. Since the month of December, 2015 the complainant has been requesting to the OP No. 1 to replace one new motor cycle in place of the present defective motor cycle or to refund the cost of the vehicle as the engine of the aforesaid vehicle is a defective one and there is manufacturing defect in the engine of the aforesaid motor cycle. But the OP No. 1 taking different pleas avoiding the complain of the complainant and not in motive to provide better service and ventilate the grievance of the complainant. The cause of action of this case arose on 05.12.2015 when the defects in the engine of the motor cycle it was found by the complainant and on 01.11.2016 when the OP No. 1 refused to replace the new motor cycle in place of the present defective motor cycle.

Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

1. The OP be directed to replace a new motor cycle in place of the present defective motor cycle having Regd. No. OD 22D 9325 or in alternate be directed to refund cost of the aforesaid  motor cycle i.e. Rs 58,728/- which has been paid by the complainant towards the purchase price with interest till date of payment.

2. And the OP be directed to pay the compensation of Rs 20,000/- towards the suffering of mental agony and financial loss of the complainant.

3. And cost of the case be decreed in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

4. And any other relief which the Honorable Court may thinks proper and fit be decreed in favour of the complainant.

Documents relied upon, by the complainant:-

1. Purchase receipt of the motor cycle.

2. Registration certificate of the motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OD 22D 9325.

3. Smart card of the vehicle.

4. Insurance paper.

5. Complain receipts and any other documents which will be required at the time of hearing.

Both the O.Ps have appeared through their concerned advocate in this Forum and filed their written version analogously and filed cretin documents on behalf him. They have denied all the allegations made by the complainant against them. They have also challenged the cause of action and maintainability of this case. The fact is that the facts of this proceeding are that the complainant has purchase Honda CD Shine (CBF 125+) Motor Cycle from the OP No. 1 on 01.11.2015. That OP no. 1 is the authorized realer of M/S Honda Motor Cycle & Scotty India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant purchase the motor cycle from the OP no. 1 on terms and condition contained in the owner’s manual, so also in the warranty policy given by the OP No. 1. That under the term and condition of the said warranty policy, the OP No. 1 under took to render for free service for one year in relation to the said motor cycle. That, as per the warranty policy the OP would repair or replace at its discretion, those parts found to have manufacture defendants during examination.  The OP No. 1 rendered for free on 23.11.2015, 24.01.2016, 20.04.2016 & 21.08.2016 on the request of the complainant. After service of the motor cycle the complainant gave satisfaction certificate in favour of OP No. 1. So there is no deficiency of service in the part of the OP. That, during service period the OP no. 1 has done over all cheque of the motor cycle of the complainant with the satisfaction or complainant.  There is no term and condition in warrant policy to provide new vehicle or refund the amount to the customers. The complainant petition is silent about the actual date of cause of action. So, entire allegation of the complaint petition are false and concocted. So, the complainant petition of the complainant be dismiss with cost.

They have also prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.

Documents filed by the O.Ps in the shape of Xerox copies:-

1. Vehicle service history- 1 sheet.

2. Job card on dt. 22.01.2016- 1 sheet.

3. Job card on dt. 18.04.2016- 1 sheet.

4. Job card on dt. 21.08.2016- 1 sheet.

5. Job card on dt. 01.11.2016- 1 sheet.       

OBSERVATION

We have already perused the complaint as well as the documents and the written version filed by the complainant as well as the O.Ps. Before going to adjudicate the case strong primafacie case is required. According to the complainant after one month of using the aforesaid motor cycle by the complainant some defect found in the engine of the said motor cycle. Rough sound come out of the engine on riding of the said motor cycle and the complainant felt uneasy to run the aforesaid motor cycle on the road and crowded place, for which the complainant approached the OP No. 1 and told him about the defect of the vehicle. The complainant has failed to file a single scrap of paper as evidence for the aforesaid cause for which he has informed the matter to the OP No. 1, as well as the reply made by the OP No. 1 to the complainant. So it is difficult to find out on which date said vehicle suffered the discrepancies or the said vehicle sustained the engine defect.

Secondly the cause of action of this case is ambiguous. The complainant has failed to elucidate the actual date of warranty and the tenure of warranty of his complaint clearly. In the Para- 5 of the complaint we have found that the complainant checked the motor cycle by the authorized mechanic of the OP No. 1 on 05.12.2015 and the second defect was found out in the engine on 01.11.2016. The complainant had mentioned two dates of cause of action but according to law the complaint is hit by multy causes of action.

The complainant has also failed to prove the averments he has made in the Para- 5. He could not file a single number of paper supporting the discussions made between the complainant and the authorized mechanic of the OP No. 1. The complainant has also failed to submit a representation by writing before the OP No. 1 describing his grievance. Had the complainant filed the representation it could have been a material evidence which is to be exhibited by the learned Forum.

The OP No. 1 rendered four free services on dt. 22.01.2016, 18.04.2016, 21.08.2016 & 01.11.2016 on the request of the complainant. After servicing of the motor cycle the complainant gave satisfactory opinion in favour of OP No. 1. During the servicing period the OP No. 1 has done overall check of the motor cycle of the complainant with satisfaction. The complainant has sought for the chief relief that “The OP be directed to replace a new motor cycle in place of the present defective motor cycle having Regd. No. OD 22D 9325 or in alternate be directed to refund cost price of the aforesaid motor cycle i.e. Rs 58,728/- which has been paid by the complainant towards purchasing price with interest till date of payment”, there is no term and condition in warranty policy to provide new vehicle or to refund the entire cost of the vehicle to the customer. Hence we have found no deficiency of service caused by the O.Ps to the complainant. Hence it is ordered;

ORDER

The complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps devoid of merit.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 3rd November, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.