BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1444/2007 against C.C.No.228/2005, Dist.Forum, West Godavari , Eluru.
Between:
Somisetty Venkata Balakrishna ,
S/o. Late Venkata Swamy,
Hindu, aged about 37 years, Business,
R/o.D.No.7B-14-6,
Eastern Street, Eluru. …Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.The Vijaya Vasava Motors,
Rep. by its Manager, N.R.Pet,
Eluru.
2.Regional Office,
Area Service Manager,
Bajaj Auto Ltd., 401,
Saptagiri Towers,
D.No.10-75/1/1-6,
S.P.Road, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016. …Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.Gowrisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu-R1
CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order dt.30.1.2006 in C.C.No.228/2005 on the file of District Forum , West Godavari , Eluru , the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Bajaj Saffire Scooter from the opposite party no.1 on 20.1.2001 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- and it was delivered to him on the same day itself. The vehicle functioned well upto three services and later it started giving some mechanical trouble i.e. the ‘self starter’ stopped functioning in a proper manner and when the said trouble was complained to the first opposite party they could not rectify the defect and in turn stated that there was some technical defect and the same was intimated to the second opposite party who have deputed one technical engineer, but he also could not rectify it and finally he stated that there was some manufacturing defect in the said vehicle itself. As there was no response from the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 23.8.2003 for which the opposite parties did not give any reply and also did not choose to rectify the defects in the vehicle. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the said defective vehicle with a new one or to repay the entire sale amount to the complainant and to award Rs.5000/- towards damages and to award costs.
The first opposite party filed version contending that the complainant never brought the vehicle to their service center and never utilized the coupon services provided by the Company and he never made any complaint with regard to the defect in the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by the complainant and his brother without observing the precautions given by the company in its manual. The opposite party company offers warranty on the vehicle for a period of 12 months or 12000 k.m. whichever occurs first . The company is not liable if the 3 coupon services plus one paid service as given in the owner’s manual have not been carried out and the warranty given by the company is not applicable to the cases where the vehicles which are not being serviced by the Bajaj Auto’s authorized Bajaj vehicle dealers and selected authorized center as per the service schedule described in the 3 coupon services plus one paid service issued to the customer. The opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 the District Forum dismissed the complaint .
Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Saffire Scooter from the first opposite party on 20.1.2001 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle functioned well upto three services and later mechanical trouble started in the vehicle and the first opposite party’s staff could not rectify the defect and the second opposite party deputed their engineer who also could not rectify the defect. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that Ex.A1 showed the first service report of the vehicle which was done by the opposite party and this service was done on 28.2.2001 at 560 kms , second service was admittedly done on 27.4.2001 at 1437 kms. and third service was done on 20.6.2001 at 2096 kms. The service coupons does not contain the stamp of the opposite party. It is the further case of the complainant that there was mechanical trouble in the ‘self starter’ and the technician of the opposite party who checked the vehicle informed him that there was technical defect. It is the case of the respondents/opposite parties that the complainant did not get the vehicle for service. The respondent/opposite party contend that the warranty period is only for one year and the complainant did not prove any manufacturing defect by way of any expert opinion. On careful perusal of the exhibits filed by the appellant/complainant, we observe that Ex.A1 is only the owner’s manual and service coupons and Ex.A2 is xerox copy of the certificate of registration and Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice, but not a single job card is filed to state exactly what the nature of defect is and if defect exists, as to whether it is rectifiable or not. The complainant also failed to establish by way of any expert opinion that his vehicle suffers from defects and the extent of defects and if the defects are manufacturing defects or not . Hence in the absence of any evidence on record to establish the case of the complainant, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent/opposite party.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/.MEMBER
Sd/.MEMBER
Dt. 17.12.2009
