Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/93/2015

Chiranjivi S/o.Choudappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Mahesh Hero Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.K.R.Umeshwarappa

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 06/11/2015

     DISPOSED ON: 23/06/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 93/2015 DATED:  23rd June 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Chiranjeevi S/o Chowdappa, Age 25 years, Agriculturist, Kallahatti Village, Maradidevigere Majure,  Aimangala Post, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.K.R. Umeshwarappa,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Proprietor, Mahesh Hero Motors, Mahendra Complex, RTO Road, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga Taluk and District.   2. The Managing Director, Hero Motor Corp Ltd., Highway Sector-33, Gurangon, New Delhi-110057, India.   (Rep by Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to replace Hero Honda Splendor Pro two wheeler bearing Chassis No.MBLHA11BFEHM12040 and Engine No.HA10EREHM55744 of 2014 model and to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience caused to him and such other reliefs as the Forum deems fit to grant.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he purchased Hero Honda Splendor Pro two wheeler bearing Chassis No.MBLHA11BFEHM12040 and Engine No.HA10EREHM55744 of 2014 model from OP No.1 who is the dealer by paying entire sale consideration amount on 08.01.2015 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle.  The said vehicle was registered as KA-16-EC-2766 on 09.01.2015 with the RTO, Chitradurga.  But, from the date of purchase the said vehicle started giving problem on one or the other reason.  It is further submitted that, complainant has serviced the same as per the directions of the OPs without fail.  Now the said vehicle was of 8 months old and the reading of the same is 11693 KMs.  Even 4 to 5 services has been completed, the engine oil filled to the said vehicle will be burnt completely within 5 to 8 days and the petrol consumption is also very low.  There is a manufacturing defects in the engine and the same is not in a repairable condition, which caused inconvenience to the complainant for his daily work and he suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.05.2015 and the OP has given untenable reply to the said notice.    Therefore, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency of service by selling defective vehicle manufactured by the OP No.2 so, the complainant sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

        3.     On service of notice, OPs appeared through Advocate Sri. A.M. Rudramuni and  filed their separate version.  It is admitted by the OP No. 1 that, the complainant has purchased Hero Honda Splendor Pro two wheeler bearing Chassis No.MBLHA11BFEHM12040 and Engine No.HA10EREHM55744 of 2014 model from OP No.1 who is the dealer by paying entire sale consideration amount on 08.01.2015 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle is having warranty up to 5 years from the date of purchase and the vehicles have got 6 free services up to 15500 KMs or 100 days from the date of its purchase whichever is earlier.  It is further submitted that, if any defects observed in the vehicle, the only liability is to repair or replace the parts which are considered to be the cause of such defect and serviced the vehicle without charging any bill i.e., free of cost but, not for exchange of new vehicle. It is denied that, the engine oil is completely burnt within 5 to 6 days and the petrol consumption is very low.  The complainant has given his vehicle for service at Chitradurga and also in Hiriyur and the OP has attended all the problems of the motor cycle in free service.  Thereafter, the complainant has placed his vehicle before OP and the OP observed the defects of the Crank Shaft, Cylinder and replaced the same and also the Gasket Cylinder head, Valveinlet, Valve exhaust, Guide ex.valve as per the invoice dated 16.10.2015 and the OP has not charged for the said replacement.  The OP has not committed any deficiency of service and has solved all the problems occurred in the motor cycle and there is no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

        4.     OP No.2 filed version stating that, complainant got the motor cycle from OP No.1 at their authorized service centre as per the dates mentioned in para 4 of his complaint and all other averments made therein are denied as false in toto.  As per the information received from the OP No.1, the complainant reported at the ARD of the OP No.1 on 12.05.2015, the smoky exhaust and low mileage defects, in response to which the said ARD thoroughly inspected the vehicle and rectified the alleged defects and the vehicle of the complainant has no manufacturing defects.  The complainant after service of his vehicle, he took its delivery by duly recording his satisfaction, the relevant job cards of the vehicle in question are herewith produced.  It is further submitted that, OP is known for their customer friendliness and quality and they are the world's largest producer of motorbike having a good name.  The OPs also runs a rigorous test on each of the motor cycle before sending to its dealers and every dealer including the OP No.1 performs a pre-delivery inspection (PDI)_ prior to delivery to each customer.  It is pertinent to note that, complainant has run and clocked his vehicle in question to the tune of 9544 KMs, which shows that the vehicle in question may have been privy to the alleged low mileage as well as smoky exhaust defect due to its improper handling and bad maintenance and the same is not suffering from any manufacturing defects.  If the vehicle in question was privy to any such alleged defects, the complainant would not have been able to run 9544 KMs as on 12.05.2015.  It is further submitted that, if any defects observed in the motor cycle in the warranty, the OPs' liability is limited to repair or replacement of the parts which covered under warranty.  Therefore, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service and has solved all the problems occurred in the motor cycle and there is no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

5. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-11 documents are marked. 

 

        6. OPs have examined one Sri. C.G. Mallikarjuna Swamy, the Proprietor of OP No.1 as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 documents have been got marked. 

 

        7.     Written Arguments filed and oral arguments heard.

 

8. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, he is the owner of Hero Honda Splendor Pro bearing registration No. KA-16-EC-2766 and the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by selling the same with manufacturing defects and thereby complainant has sustained financial loss and entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

10. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda Splendor Pro two wheeler bearing registered No. KA-16-EC-2766.  The Chassis Number of the same is MBLHA11BFEHM12040 and Engine No.HA10EREHM55744 of 2014 model. The same was purchased from OP No.1, the dealer by paying entire sale consideration amount on 08.01.2015 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle.  But, within a span of few days the said vehicle started giving problem on one or the other reason.  Complainant has serviced the same as per the directions of the OPs.  Even 4 to 5 services has been completed, the engine oil filled to the said vehicle will be burnt completely within 5 to 8 days and the petrol consumption is also very low, which caused the complainant both mental agony and financial loss. There is a manufacturing defects in the engine and the same is not in a repairable condition, which caused inconvenience to the complainant for his day to day work.

 

        11.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like copy of legal notice dated 25.02.2015 marked as Ex.A-1, Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-2, Reply notice dated 10.06.2015 marked as Ex.A-3, original cash paid receipt dated 08.01.2015 for Rs.49,995/- marked as Ex.A-4, Original R.C marked as Ex.A-5,  Original Insurance Policy marked as Ex.A-6, Original free service book marked as Ex.A-7, original cash paid receipts for materials/parts on different dates marked as Ex.A-8 to   Ex.A-11, they are not in dispute.        

 

12.   On the other hand, OPs have argued the matter denying the entire averments made by the complainant.  It is admitted by the OPs that, the complainant has purchased Hero Honda Splendor Pro two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA-16-EC-2766 of 2014 model from OP No.1 who is the dealer by paying entire sale consideration amount on 08.01.2015 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle with warranty period of years from the date of purchase and if any defects observed in the vehicle, the only liability is to repair or replace the parts which are considered to be the cause of such defect and serviced the vehicle without charging any bill i.e., free of cost but, not for exchange of new vehicle. The vehicles have got 6 free services up to 15500 KMs or 100 days from the date of its purchase whichever is earlier It is denied that, the engine oil is completely burnt within 5 to 6 days and the petrol consumption is very low.  The OP has attended all the problems of the motor cycle in free service whenever the complainant left his vehicle for service.  The OP No.1 observed the defects of the Crank Shaft, Cylinder and replaced the same and also the Gasket Cylinder head, Valveinlet, Valve exhaust, Guide ex.valve as per the invoice dated 16.10.2015 and the OP has not charged for the said replacement. 

        13.   It is further argued that, Complainant got serviced the motor cycle from OP No.1 at their authorized service centre.  As per the information received from the OP No.1, the complainant reported at the ARD of the OP No.1 on 12.05.2015, the smoky exhaust and low mileage defects, the said ARD thoroughly inspected the vehicle and rectified the alleged defects and the vehicle of the complainant has no manufacturing defects and the complainant recorded his satisfaction in the job cards.  OP is known for their customer friendliness and quality and they are the world's largest producer of motorbike having a good name.  The OPs also runs a rigorous test on each of the motor cycle before sending to its dealers and every dealer including the OP No.1 performs a pre-delivery inspection (PDI) prior to delivery to each customer.   Complainant has run and clocked his vehicle in question to the tune of 9544 KMs, which shows that the vehicle in question may have been privy to the alleged low mileage as well as smoky exhaust defect due to its improper handling and bad maintenance and the same is not suffering from any manufacturing defects.  If any defects observed in the motor cycle in the warranty, the OPs' liability is limited to repair or replacement of the parts which covered under warranty.  Therefore, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service and has solved all the problems occurred in the motor cycle and there is no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 14.  In support of their contentions,  OPs have relied on affidavit evidence of one Sri. C.G. Mallikarjuna Swamy, the Proprietor of OP No.1 as DW-1, in which they have reiterated the contents of their version.  OPs have also relied on documents like invoice dated 16.10.2015 and 22.12.2015 marked as Ex.B-1, original of free service job cards dated 12.05.2015 and 14.11.2015 marked as Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-3,  original gate pass and last time advice jobs marked Ex.B-4, original owners manual marked as Ex.B-5.     

15.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and on careful perusal of the entire records, it clearly goes to show that, complainant purchased Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-15-EC-2766 on 09.01.2015 from the dealer i.e., OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 by paying the entire sale consideration amount.  According to the complainant, since from the beginning he had experienced one or the other defects with the said vehicle mainly defects with the crank shaft, cylinder, gasket cylinder head, valveinlet, valve exhaust, guide ex.valve and the same was evident as per the invoice dated 16.10.2015, as the OP has replaced the same.  But, after the said repair, the vehicle of the complainant giving same problem.  Complainant was forced to take the said vehicle for repairs to OP 1 several times and OP 1 is unable to detect the defects and cure the same.  The purpose for which the said vehicle was purchased could not be fulfilled even the complainant has followed the instructions given by the OPs.  Within 5 to 8 days the engine oil became dried and the consumption was very low and the said vehicle gone to bore for three times within a span of 8 months and therefore, the engine of the vehicle has manufacturing defects. 

 

16.   OPs have not disputed that, complainant brought the said vehicle with various complaints within a span of time till filing of the complaint.   But they are unable to detect the defects and cure the same.  When OP No.1 is unable to detect the defects, he filed the complaint alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief from the OPs as claimed in the complaint, compensation for mental agony and also cost towards the proceedings.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is partly held as affirmative to the complainant.

 

17.   Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

ORDER

It is ordered that, the complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of C.P Act are hereby allowed in part.

        It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to replace the new defect free vehicle or to return the entire amount paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the vehicle and further the complainant is ordered to return old vehicle to the OP No.1. 

        It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above said order within two months from the date of this order. 

        It is further directed the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each  towards cost of the proceedings in all the complaints.

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/06/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

 

                                                          

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OPs one Sri. C.G. Mallikarjuna Swamy, the Proprietor  of OP No.1 as DW-1:

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 25.02.2015
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement
03	Ex-A-3:-	Reply notice dated 10.06.2015
04	Ex-A-4:-	Original cash paid receipt dated 08.01.2015 for Rs.49,995/-
05	Ex-A-5:-	Original R.C
06	Ex-A-6:-	Original Insurance Policy
07	Ex-A-7:-	Original free service book.
08	Ex-A-8 to Ex.A-11:-	Original cash paid receipts for materials/parts on different dates

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Invoice dated 16.10.2015 and 22.12.2015
02	Ex-B-2 & Ex.B-3:-	Original of free service job cards dated 12.05.2015 and 14.11.2015
03	Ex-B-4:-	Original gate pass and last time advice jobs
04	Ex-B-5:-	Original owners manual

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.