Haryana

Sonipat

CC/230/2015

Rohit Verma S/o Raj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Om Scooter - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Chhikara

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.230 of 2015

                                Instituted on:17.07.2015

                                Date of order:07.12.2015

 

 

Rohit Verma son Raj Singh Verma, r/o H.No.909, Gali no.3, Jai Bagh Colony, Gohana road, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.The Manager, Om Scooters, Authorized dealer of Bajaj Two Wheelers Sonepat.

2.Bajaj Auto Ltd. Regional office, B-60/61, Narayana Ind. Area, Phase II, New Delhi-28.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Kuldeep Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Naveen Arora, Adv. for respondents.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one motor cycle Discover 125 from the respondent no.1 vide invoice dated 14.6.2013. After the due care, the motor cycle got serious engine problem and the same was dropped at local service centre of respondent no.1, who charged Rs.1080/- on 20.12.2014.  But the vehicle remain in the same situation and the complainant visited several times to the respondents, but of no use and still the vehicle is lying with the respondent no.1 and the vehicle is within warranty and this wrongful act of the respondents has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 filed their written statement submitting therein that there was no problem  in the engine of the vehicle of the complainant.  The complainant came to the respondent no.1 for the purpose of service and on checking the fault, the same was removed by changing the parts which were not under warranty and an amount of Rs.980/- was charged from the complainant and the job card was prepared in the presence of the complainant and the same was duly signed by the complainant and the vehicle had run upto 29763 km upto that time.   The warranty with regard to the vehicle is for two years or running of motor cycle upto 30000 km. Despite repeated request made by the respondent no.1, the complainant did not bother to collect his vehicle. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          As per the respondents, the complainant on 7.11.2014 came to the respondent no.1 for the purpose of service and on checking the fault, the same was removed by changing the parts which were not under warranty and an amount of Rs.980/- was charged from the complainant and the job card was prepared in the presence of the complainant and the same was duly signed by the complainant and the vehicle had run upto 29763 km upto that time.  The warranty with regard to the vehicle is for two years or running of motor cycle upto 30000 km.

          At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the documents Annexure A to Annexure E.

          As per the complainant, he visited the respondent no.1 several times i.e. on 10.2.2015, 16.2.2015, 23.3.2015, 20.4.2015, 3.6.2015 and still the vehicle is in the service centre of the respondent no.1.

          We have perused the job sheet dated 7.11.2014 wherein kilometer reading is mentioned as 29763. Similarly in the job sheet dated 5.7.2013, kilometer is shown as 20225.  In the job sheet dated 19.12.2014 kilometer is shown as 29764.

          In the document Ex.R2, dated 10.2.2015, kilometer shown is 30904 and on this date, the complainant made a complaint with regard to engine noise. All checkup and washing and after getting the above said work, the complainant received his vehicle.  Vide job sheet dated 16.2.2015, kilometer is mentioned as 30905 and on this date the complainant approached the respondent no.1 for average checking of the vehicle which was done by the official of the respondent no.1 and average 70 KM per litre was found and vehicle was handed over to the complainant.  The complainant again left the vehicle with respondent no.1 on 23.3.2015 at 32729 KM and he received the vehicle on 28.3.2015.  Similarly on 20.4.2015, the complainant approached the respondent no.1 for engine noise and on this date, the vehicle has already covered 34133 kilometer and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 30.4.2015. As per job sheet dated 23.3.2015, the vehicle has covered 32729 km.

          So from the perusal of the job sheets mentioned above, it is clear that upto 20.4.2015, the vehicle has already covered 34133 KM.

          The complainant to prove his case has placed on record the documents Ex.C7, C8, C9, C10 and C11.  Similarly, the respondent no.1 to prove that there is no deficiency in service on their part has placed on record the documents Annexure A to F.

          The perusal of the case file shows that the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 17.7.2015 alleging therein that still the vehicle is lying in the workshop of the respondent no.1.  But on the contrary the material placed on record by the respondent no.1 proves that the vehicle was brought in the workshop of the respondent no.1 on 20.4.2015 at 34133 KM and after doing the needful, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant and the same was also received by the complainant.

          In the present case, the complainant has failed to produce any expert report or evidence which may go to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the same is unrepairable.  In our view, on the basis of the material available on the case file, replacement of the vehicle with new one cannot be allowed particularly when the material available on the case file shows that the complainant was using the vehicle in question continuously, constantly and excessively.  Had there been any major defect in the vehicle or the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vehicle would not have covered 34133 km upto 20.4.2015 from the date of its purchase i.e. 14.6.2013.  Thus, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the present complaint has no merit and thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint. However, the respondent no.1 is directed that if the vehicle is lying in their possession, the same be returned to the complainant.

          The parties are left to bear their own costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi) (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 07.12.2015