Date of filing: 12.10.2017 Date of Order : 12.7.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY THE 12th DAY OF JULY, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 78 / 2017
Shaik Zakir Hussain,
S/o Shaik Mahammad Ameer Rasool,
aged about 27 years, Muslim,
R/o D.No. 57/365-8, Akkayappalli,
R.V. Nagar (Post),
Kadapa Dist. (A.P). ….Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, MDH TVS Authorized Dealers,
TVS Motor company, 8/195, Almaspet,
Kadapa – 516 001.
2. The Managing Director, TVS Motor Company,
Post Box No. 4, Harita, Hosur – 635109,
Krishnagli District, Tamil Nadu. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 04.7.2018 in the presence of complainant as in person and Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate for O.P.1 and Sri K. Ramesh, Advocate for O.P.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 for rectification of defects i.e. mileage and pickup of TVS Sport vehicle of the complainant bearing Engine No. EF5LF1220505 and Chasis No. MD625MF59F1L38819 within warranty period or to replace with new vehicle or to refund an amount of Rs. 43,590/- towards cost of the vehicle, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:- Opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of Opposite party No. 2 and gave wide publicity in sale of TVS sport motor cycles and attracting the same the complainant purchased TVS Sport above said numbered vehicle of O.P.1 by paying Rs. 43,590/- and received delivery of the vehicle on 28.12.2015 along with warranty of five years. The temporary registration of the vehicle is AP 04 UNTR 8712. At the time of purchase O.P.1 assured that the motor cycle gave mileage 95 k.m per liter. The complainant found that the said vehicle cannot give mileage 95 k.m per liter and also pickup problem. When reported to O.P.1 convinced him that after using the said vehicle regularly it give mileage and pickup. However, the motor cycle is giving only 45 k.m per liter and there is a problem in pickup. The complainant got vehicle checkup in O.P.1’s showroom but not rectified the defects. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because technical or manufacturing defects the vehicle offering low mileage and gave other troubles, the defects not rectified by O.P.2 service center inspite of given legal notice on 22.8.2017. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate written versions.
4. O.P.1 filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant interalia contending that he never gave assurance that the motor cycle will gave mileage of 95 k.m per liter. There are no manufacturing defects in the vehicle and the complainant had not come up for periodical services to the vehicle. The complainant did not raised any problem with regard to the mileage, pickup etc., at any point of time till notice given on 22.8.2017 and 28.12.2018. He did not complained nor pointed out any problem till filing of the complaint or giving legal notice. Thus the complainant suppressed real facts and made false allegations. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1 as in all services are in record sheets and the complainant took the motor cycle with satisfaction. O.P.1 is only a dealer and is not a manufacturing company. So he is only a related to sale service of the vehicle and the complaint is false, fraudulent and vexatious. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. O.P.2 filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant. Further contended that the motor cycle manufactured by this O.P passed through various tests and analysis at the factory regarding quality of components, engine alignment, engine function, components assemblies, electro mechanical parts checks, ride test etc., in compliance of motor cycle Act and its Rules, Notifications etc., It is only manufacturer of the vehicle and does not provide any service of the vehicle. In the present case the services is governed inter-se between the O.P.1 and the complainant. As per warranty conditions the complainant is not entitled for any warranty or replacement of the vehicle or refund of purchase price. If any components found to be defective then the defective components shall only be replaced. There is absolutely no refusal by the authorized dealer to attend warranty / paid services. The vehicle is perfect in mechanical condition and there is no defect or deficiency in the complainant’s vehicle. There is no evidence placed on record furnished by the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect of the complainant. Whenever the vehicle was brought for servicing to the O.P.1 the same was attended to the full satisfaction of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. complaint against this O.P. is frivolous, vexatious. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A13 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Exs. B1 to B3 documents are marked. Complainant filed written arguments. Opposite parties not filed written arguments.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and considered written arguments filed by the complainant and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
8. On the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against Opposite parties 1 & 2, if so what extent?
- To what relief ?
9. Point Nos. i and ii: These two points are connected to each other, hence, they are discussed together for the sake of convenience and better understanding.
10. The complainant in person contended that he purchased TVS Sport motor vehicle from O.P.1 on 28.12.2015 on the assurance of O.P.1 that the vehicle would give 95 k.m per liter mileage but it has not been giving and also gave trouble with regard to pickup of the vehicle those defects were not rectified. So he is entitled for refund of amount or replacement of the vehicle as there is manufacturing defect of the vehicle. But the opposite parties are not complied his demands. Thus there is deficiency in service and is entitled for the reliefs.
11. Learned counsel for O.P.1 contended that he is only dealer of O.P.2 and he never gave assurance of 95 k.m mileage per liter and giving mileage depends on various aspects regarding road condition, driving skill of the complainant, vehicle condition of maintenance by the complainant etc., that the complainant never complained any such problem till issuing of notice under Ex. A3 on 22.8.2015 and even the vehicle has not been brought to checkup by expert in that field before this forum and no material has been placed by the complainant to prove that there was service defect or manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Hence, the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1 and is not entitled for any reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. In this case there is no dispute that the complainant purchased TVS Sport motor vehicle bearing No. AP 04 UNTR 8712 from O.P.1 manufactured by O.P.2 on 28.12.2015 for Rs. 43,590/- and it has warranty of 5 years. The same was proved that even by filing Exs. A1, A6, A7 and A10. The allegation of complainant is that the O.P.1 gave wide publicity that the above said vehicle would give 95 k.m mileage per liter but in fact not giving and also has pickup problem to the vehicle. The complainant filed Ex. A11 broacher said to have been issued by O.P.1 regarding mileage. But a perusal of Ex. A11 does not disclose that it was issued by O.P.1. On the other hand it appeared that it was issued VS credit services limited. So Ex. A11 cannot be attached to O.P1 to prove that he is assured 95 k.m mileages per liter.
13. Sofar as second allegation is concerned that the vehicle has pickup problem. The complainant has not substantiated by filing any evidence by him. If at all the vehicle has any pickup problem the same would have been brought to the notice of O.P.1 service point and get it rectified. But no such evidence was forthcoming from the side of complainant. As per Ex. A10 warranty and services dt. 24.12.2016, 24.3.2017, 24.6.2017, 24.9.2017 the services done by the O.P.1 is with his utmost satisfaction. So, no complaint of any defects at that time The complainant failed to prove that there was any problem of pickup or low mileage as pleaded by him. Coming to the aspect of manufacturing defect alleged by the complainant the complainant has to prove the same by placing sufficient evidence of expert in the field to shows that there is manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Mere allegation that there is manufacturing defect of the vehicle by the complainant does not sufficient either to replace the vehicle or refund of the cost. The complainant in this case absolutely failed to establish that the motor cycle purchased by him had any manufacturing defect. Therefore, we hold there is no manufacturing defect proved by the complainant to the vehicle purchased by him.
14. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for O.P’s 1 & 2 that the mileage of the motor cycle purchased by the complainant depends on so many circumstances viz., the road worthy condition, the place of riding of the vehicle by the owner of the vehicle, skillness of the driver of the vehicle and condition of the vehicle and maintenance of the vehicle by complainant. But in this case absolutely no evidence has been placed by the complainant where he was riding the vehicle and found that the vehicle was giving less mileage and got pickup problem and how many kilometers he had run the vehicle after its purchase etc., facts. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove any of allegations regarding low mileage of the vehicle, pickup problem of the vehicle and manufacturing defects as pleaded by him and also failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 either to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost of it. Therefore, opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable for any reliefs claimed by the complainant and the complainant is not entitled any reliefs from them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
15. Point No. iii:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 12th day of July, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex.A1 P/c of Bill no.4334, dt. 28-12-2015 for Rs.43,590/- issued by op-1.
Ex.A2 P/c of Aadhar Card No.264903861731 issued in favour of complainant.
Ex.A3 P/c of Legal notice dated 22-08-2017 from complainant to opp. parties.
Ex.A4 P/c of two Reg. post receipts and Ack. from o.p-1.
Ex.A5 P/c of Tax receipt issued by the transport department
dt.28-12-2015.
Ex.A6 P/c of Temporary certificate of Registration issued by transport department.
Ex.A7 P/c of Sale certificate in form no.21 issued by o.p-1 dt.28-12-2015.
Ex.A8 P/c of Application for Registration of Moter vehicle form 20 (3pages).
Ex.A9 P/c of Assurance upto five years Warranty along with customer copy booklet No.2422480.
Ex.A10 P/c of Warranty and services dated 24-12-2015 (2 numbers).
Ex.A11 P/c of Broucher issued by op no.1 for TVS Sport vehicle gives 95 K.M, P L.
Ex.A12 P/c of BILL NO.1425, DT.18-07-2017 ISSUED BY O.P-1.
Ex.A13 P/c of Corporate warranties (1) PVT LTD.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Oppoiste parties :–
Ex.B1 P/c of the Warranty Manual
Ex.B2 P/c of ARAI Certificate dt.09-06-2015,
Ex.B3 P/c of the Extended Warranty.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
- Sri Shaik Zakir Hussain, S/o Shaik Mahammad Ameer Rasool,
R/o D.No. 57/365-8, Akkayappalli, R.V. Nagar (Post),
Kadapa Dist. (A.P).
2) Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate for O.P.1.
3) Sri K. Ramesh, Advocate for O.P.2.
B.V.P
