BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 25th day of January, 2006
C.D.No.65/2005
B. Lokeswara Gupta,
S/o. B. R. Krishna Chetty,
H.No. 43/61, N.R. Peta,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
M/s Hero Motors,
10th KM Stone, G.T. Road,
P.O. Dujana-203207,
Dadri, Ghaziabad, (U.P).
2. Ajay Agarwal,
Executive Service,
Hero Motors, 601,
International Trade Towers,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
3. Proprietor,
Shivani Automobiles,
Shop No. 8, 9 and 10,
MRCS Complex, N.H.7,
Bangalore Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 24.1.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri G.I. Rafat, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and 3 and opposite party No.2 appears to inperson, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 and 13 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the Hero Smart DLX Motor Cycle with new brand or to refund its cost of Rs.25,000/- with interest and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony on account of said vehicle’s engine problem and mileage pick-up and cracks in seat panel, and Rs.1,000/- towards cost alleging defects in said vehicle manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 and sold to him by opposite party No.3 on 10-5-2004 under Engine No. DCH015053 and Chassis No.4C962338 for Rs.25,000/-, as to mileage at 40 Km per liter against the advertised at 100 Km per liter, development of cracks at seat panel and the deficiency of service of the opposite parties in attending and rectifying them inspite of repeated approaches and correspondence.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of this notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite parties No.1 and 3 contested the case filing written version denying the case and cause of action and their liability to the complainant’s claim, the opposite party No.2 abstained from participating in the proceedings.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.3 adopted by opposite party No.1 deny any alleged advertisement by at as to the mileage of said vehicle at 100 Km per liter as the mileage of the vehicle depends upon several factors and conditions such as road condition, speed at which the vehicle was driven with frequency of application of breaks and change of gears using clutch, tyre pressure, condition of lubricant oils and periodical services of the vehicle and compliance of owners manual instructions, and the complaints complained at the periodical services were attended to the satisfaction of the complainant and at any such periodical service the complainant ever made any complaint as to the defect now pointed out in the complaint and the damaged said seat panel was on account of the complainant’s got fixing to it a luggage hook after its purchase which cannot be contributed to any manufacturer defects of said vehicle. Thus denying any manufacturing defect and any deficiency of service and the cause of action of the complainant and the liability of the opposite parties for complainant’s claim seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In substantiation of their contentions while the complainants side as relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and reply of opposite parties to its interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record marked in Ex.B1 and B2, to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.3 and reply of complainant to its interrogatories.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any consumer dispute exposing the liability of the opposite parties for any defect in the goods and their deficiency in the service as to the said goods.
6. The opposite party has not denying the status of the complainant as purchaser of Hero Smart DLX is the Ex.A1 and A2 envisaging the complainants purchase of said vehicle remains conclusively proved.
7. The grouse of the complainant is that the said vehicle is giving a poor mileage of 40 Km per liter as against the opposite parties advertising as to said vehicle mileage as 100 Km per liter. While the opposite parties denies said allegation the complainant has not placed any such cogent material by which the bonofidies and the truth of said contentions as to expected mileage could be believed as while the vehicle purchased by the complainant was Hero Smart DLX, the broucher filed in Ex.A5, which shows a mileage of 100 Km per liter pertains to a vehicle which is “Hero Smart” make and not of Hero Smart DLX make as mentioned in the Ex.A7 and Ex.A1, A2 and B2. On the other hand the Ex.B2 broucher pertaining the technical particulars of Hero Smart DLX does not envisage that the said vehicle shall give a mileage of 100 Km per liter. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties advertised as to the expected mileage of the vehicle he purchased at 100 Km per liter remains without any substance and there by remaining worthy of any consideration to find the liability of the opposite party.
8. The complainant alleges the said poor mileage of his vehicle was on account of defect in the engine of said vehicle, but to substantiate the same and to make believe any prima-facie truth are possibility as such, got filed any technical examination report of the engine of said vehicle done by any approved agency nor restored to any such legal process to get tested the engine of said vehicle as contemplated under Section 13 I (c ) of Consumer Protection Act nor the complainant appears to have ever made any such complainant as to the engine in the periodical services he had for said vehicle from the opposite parties as seen from the job card in Ex.B1. Hence, the complainant is remaining failed in establishing any defect in engine none the less any inherent and manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle as to expose any liability of the opposite parties for replacing it with brand new vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest as claimed or any deficiency of services of the opposite party in rendering service to the said vehicle.
9. The opposite parties alleges the development of cracks to the seat panel was on account of the complainants getting fixed to it a luggage hook. The complainant did not deny the same either in the interrogatories or affidavits. Hence, in the said development of cracks shown only in Ex.A6 photos without any of their traces in their alleged corresponding negatives, the opposite parties could be found of any liability.
10. In sum up of the above discussion the complainant is not making out any consumer dispute exposing the liability of the opposite parties for his claim the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 25th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Receipt of Shivani Automobiles, Kurnool dt 6.5.2004 for Rs.5,000/-.
Ex A.1 Receipt of Shivani Automobiles, Kurnool dt 6.5.2004 for Rs.20,000/-.
Ex A.3 Spare parts bills (1to 7) of Shivani Auto Mobiles, Kurnool.
Ex A.4 Letters of complainant to opposite party in numbers 5 (1 to 5).
Ex A.5 Hero Sumrt (100Ks) terms and conditions.
Ex A.6 Photos (two) along with negatives.
Ex A.7 Owners manual original book of the vehicle ( Hero Motors Book No.
0756).
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Job Card – Hero Motors No. 1145, dt 11.12.2004.
Ex B.2 Hero Smart (Broacher).
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Smt G.I. Rafat, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Ajay Agarwal, Executive Service, Hero Motors, 601, International Trade –
Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
