Date of filing: 16.11.2009
Date of order: 02.08.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE AT VELLORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc. B.L., MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER - II
TUESDAY THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.37/2009
K. ABDUL KADHAR,
S/o. Md. Ismail Sahib,
No.16, Pudupet 1st street,
Melvisharam, Walajah Taluk,
Vellore District. …Complainant.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
M/s BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,
Akrudi,
Pune – 411 035,
India.
2. The Manager,
M/s VDS SAYAR BAJAJ,
No.83, Arni Main Road,
Sainathapuram, Vellore.
3. The Manager,
M/s CITY BIKES,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore-9. …Opposite parties.
Counsel for complainant : Tmt. J. Kanchana Arivazhagan
Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 : Tmt. N. Sunobor
ORDER
SELVI.I.MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, MEMBER
This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant has been prays to direct the opposite parties to provide brand new blue colour Platina 100 CC, by replacing the said defective two-wheeler and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
1. The case of the complainants are briefly as follows:
The complainant had purchased a Bajaj Platina 100 CC motor bicycle on 01.01.2009, under hire purchase agreement for Rs.46,871/-. The engine No. of the said vehicle is 035551 and chassis No. is MDZDDDZZZRWG59484. He had paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- as earnest money on 01.01.2009. After taking delivery of the said vehicle from third opposite party, the complainant noticed several defects in the said vehicle, like back wheel alignment, failure of power in the battery, loud noise in the engine and the horn was not functioning. Further the complainant had demanded blue colour vehicle. Since the third opposite party did not have blue colour at the showroom, they had altered some of the parts from black colour two-wheeler and gave it to the complainant. After noticing the above stated defects, the complainant bought it to the notice of the third opposite party and returned the said two-wheeler to the third opposite party, but the third opposite party received the said two-wheeler and kept in the service station for about one month. Even after taking one month’s time by the third opposite party, the defects were not rectified. Once again, the complainant brought to the notice of the third opposite party. The third opposite party observed that the two-wheeler is alright and forced the complainant to take the two-wheeler. But the complainant refused to take the vehicle unless the defects were rectified. The third opposite party assaulted the complainant, black and blue. Aggrieved over the act of third opposite party, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Sathuvachari Police Station. The third opposite party has not taken any steps to get registration of the vehicle, with the RTO office and failed and neglected to produce the insurance policy of the vehicle, though the opposite party received the amount from complainant. Unable to hear the noise and the defectives in the two-wheeler, the complainant came to know that the second opposite party is the main dealer for the said two-wheeler and took the same to the second opposite party. After receiving the said vehicle from the complainant, the second opposite party kept it for about one week, but failed and neglected to rectify the defectives. But complainant was told that defective in the two-wheeler were rectified. But nothing was done by the second opposite party. The defect in the said two-wheeler still continues and the same cannot be run on the road due to the loud noise. Aggrieved over the second and third opposite parties, the complainant gave the direction to the bankers to make stop payments of the cheques, issued in respect of hire purchase agreement. The complainant also gave notice to all opposite parties calling upon them to give brand new Bajaj Platina two-wheeler as the defects in the said vehicle were not rectified despite several services. Though the opposite parties received the notice they failed to comply. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant further states that because of the irresponsible acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has been put to mental agony and untold hardship. The act of opposite parties is highly illegal and unlawful. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties are as follows:
The complainant purchased the Bajaj Platina 100 cc motorcycle on 01.01.2009, under hire purchase agreement. As on 01.01.2009, the total cost of the said vehicle is Rs.40,377/-, but complainant wrongly stated the cost of the motorcycle as Rs.46,871/-. The complainant might have included the interest amount for the loan as cost of the vehicle. Further this opposite party sold Baja Platina 100 cc motorcycle having engine Number.DUMBRG85441, Chassis No. MD2DDDZZZRWG59484. But in complaint the engine number differs. As such the complainant seems to have replaced the original engine with some other engine in order to file this complaint. Further the complainant failed to pay the down payment in one-time payment. He has paid only Rs.7,000/- on 01.01.2009 and taken delivery of the vehicle. And he signed in delivery note also, while he took the vehicle. This opposite party vehemently denies the allegation that the two-wheeler was delivered to complainant on 01.02.2009. The complainant has to strictly prove the same. This opposite party states that after complete verification, the complainant chose the vehicle and it was handed over to the complainant without any defects. Further the first opposite party manufactures the vehicle, in his plant using advanced technologies and the first opposite party has distinctive experience in manufacturing two-wheelers. After making through check-up the two-wheelers have been marketed by the first opposite party. As such there shall not be any defects in the motor bikes. The complainant has taken two-wheeler only after test ride with satisfaction. If any defects are found in the vehicle as alleged, he must not have taken the vehicle. In fact, the complainant used the two-wheeler for a weeks’ time. Thereafter he demanded to replace the blue with black colour, for this opposite party expressed its inability. Since the two-wheeler is used by the complainant, for which they formed grudge and hence the complainant alleges false allegations of alteration in some parts of the vehicle. This opposite party specifically denies said allegations. This opposite party never altered any parts of the vehicle. The complainant has to strictly prove the same. Further by altering some parts of the two-wheeler, colour of the vehicle could not be changed. Accordingly, the allegation is false, imaginary and found by the complainant to find fault on this opposite party. The complainant subjected the two-wheeler for only one free service and he had conducted the mandatory periodical services at the service station, which amounts to violation of warranty condition. Accordingly, either this opposite party or the other opposite parties cannot be held liable. Further this opposite party specifically denies the allegation that the vehicle was kept by this opposite party for a month’s time in his service station.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. Proof affidavit of second opposite party filed. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. Written argument of complainant filed. Written argument of opposite parties filed. Oral arguments heard both sides.
4. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 &2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the
complaint?
3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled to?
5. POINT NO. 1&2: The complainant purchased a Bajaj Platina 100 CC motorcycle by availing loan from the Bajaj Auto Finance Limited. The total sale consideration paid by the complainant is Rs. 70,000 who receipt of which was marked as Ex.A1. The main contention raised by the complainant is that after taking delivery of the said two wheeler. He noticed several defects in the said two wheeler, such as back wheel alignment failure of power in the battery loud noise in the engine and horn was not functioning. For repairs of the same, the complainant handed over the vehicle with the third opposite party on 03.02.2009 and same was rectified and handed over to the complainant. After running the said vehicle for a week he was not satisfied with the colour of the vehicle and handed over to the third opposite party to change the colour. Accordingly the third opposite party changed certain spare parts for the satisfaction of the complainant and took back the vehicle without any produced what so ever. In the meantime there is a alternation between the complainant and the third opposite party. Regarding the service of the said vehicle. For which the complainant lodge a complaint before the Sathuvachari Police Station. Wherein there was a compromise between the complainant and third opposite party. The main allegation raised by the complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. But on going through the records filed by the both parties, we did not find any material to show that the said vehicle’s breakdown was due to any manufacturing defect. Further in the service record we did not find any material regarding the engine problem. Therefore, we find that there is no manufacturing defect as aggrieved by the complainant in the said vehicle. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence these point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.
6. Point No.3: In Point Nos.1 and 2, we have decided that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complainant is not entitled for any relief. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 2nd August, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 –01.01.2009 - Receipt for a sum of Rs.7,000/- issued by the 3rd opposite
party
Ex.A2 - 07.02.2009 - Delivery cum Owner’s manual issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A3 – 18.03.2009 - Office Copy of the notice
Ex.A4 - Postal Receipt
Ex.A5 -18.03.2009 - Receipt showing certificate of posting
Ex.A6-01.01.2009 - Receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party for service
Ex.A7-03.02.2009 - Receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party for service
Ex.A8-05.03.2009 - Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party for service
Ex.A9-10.04.2009 - Receipt issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10-12.06.2009 - Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - 01.01.2009 - Vehicle delivery voucher / Note
Ex.B2 – 12.03.2009 – Workshop cash bill no.302261
Ex.B3 - Job Card No.1343
Ex.B4 - 26.06.2009 - Notice issued by opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
