Punjab

Sangrur

CC/300/2018

Dibash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Motors Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Sarao

11 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 300

 Instituted on:   16.07.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     11.01.2021

Dibash Chander son of Sita Ram, resident of H.No. B/13-566 St. No.2,Gobindpura Basti, Sangrur-148001.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     TVS Motor Company Ltd. PB No.4, Harita, Hosur 635109, Tamilnadu India.

2.     Shri Ram Motors Dirba, District Sangrur 148035.

3.     Guru Kirpa Motors near Ranbir College, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Prop/Partners 148001.

                ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             :Shri  Kuldeep Jain, Adv.              

For the OPNo.1&3               :Shri Ramit Pathak,Adv.

For OP No.2                        :Given Up.

 

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:   

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint pleading that he purchased a TVS Jupiter scooter from OP number 2. At the time of its purchase OP number 2 requested the complainant to take extended warranty of above said vehicle as such the complainant purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.640/- vide booklet number 1518201 dated 17.2.2015 which was valid for five years i.e. 17.2.2015 to 3.2.2020. The OPs assured the complainant that there would be no requirement of paying money at the time of service or repair of the vehicle during the said period.  Further case of the complainant is that on 1.6.2018 the complainant approached OP number 3 for repair of the vehicle and after repair of OP number 3 issued an invoice number 88 dated 1.6.2018 for Rs.2375/- to the complainant. The complainant requested OP number 3 that the repair was got during the existence of extended warranty but OP number 3 did not accede to the request of the complainant and wrongly charged Rs.2375/- from the complainant.  The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2375/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the opposite party number 2 was given up the learned counsel for the complainant.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is denied by OP that the complainant purchased TVS Jupiter from OP number 2, however  it is correct that the same is manufactured by OP.  It is denied that the OP ever assured that there would be no requirement of paying money at the time of service or repair during the period of extended warranty as alleged in the complaint.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  It is stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  It is denied that the complainant has got repaired or conducted service of the Jupiter from time to time as per the conditions of the extended warranty. It is most important to note that when the complainant approached the OP for repairs, at that time the extended warranty was not in force as the complainant did not follow the service regulations inspite of receipt of all the terms and conditions of the service.  It is admitted that the complainant got his Jupiter repaired from OP on 28.5.2018 and after inspection of the same, it was found that the complainant has changed the engine oil from some other mechanic and this is a violation of the service manual.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is owner of one TVS Jupiter which was purchased by him from OP number 2. Further it is argued that at the time of its purchase OP number 2 requested the complainant to take extended warranty of above said vehicle as such the complainant purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.640/- vide booklet number 1518201 dated 17.2.2015 which was valid for five years i.e. 17.2.2015 to 3.2.2020. Further the learned counsel has argued that the OPs assured the complainant that there would be no requirement of paying money at the time of service or repair of the vehicle during the said period.  Further the learned counsel has argued that on 1.6.2018 the complainant approached OP number 3 for repair of the vehicle and after repair of OP number 3 issued an invoice number 88 dated 1.6.2018 for Rs.2375/- to the complainant. The complainant requested OP number 3 that the repair was got during the existence of extended warranty but OP number 3 did not accede to the request of the complainant and wrongly charged Rs.2375/- from the complainant which is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 3 have argued that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the extended warranty. All the terms and conditions are fully mentioned in the document Ex.OP3/8. The learned counsel for OPs further argued that the complainant got the oil changed from outside, so he was not entitled to the extended warranty  and this fact is also evident from the document on record Ex.OP3/5.  The complainant had given up his claim against OP number 2 as the company has closed. 

 

8.             In reply it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the TVS Jupiter from OP.  The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C-4 to support the contents of the complaint. The complainant has taken the extended warranty for five years vide document Ex.C-2 from Shri Ram Motors Dirba from 17.2.2015 to 3.2.2020 and he had deposited Rs.640/-, so it is clear that the warranty was extended for five years.  In the present case, the vehicle was got repaired from OP number 3 who is authorized dealer of TVS Motors.  There is a document on record Ex.OP3/5 to show that the customer has replaced the oil from outside, so, he is not entitled to the benefit of extended warranty.  The onus is on the OP to prove that the oil which was replaced from outside and the same was defective, which the OP has failed to establish on record.   So, it is clear that the Jupiter was repaired from the OP number 3 and an amount of Rs.2375/- was paid by the complainant to the OP number 3.  Further it is clear that as per the extended warranty OP number 3 is not entitled to charge the amount of Rs.2375/- from the complainant.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the  Opposite party number 3  to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2375/-, however, no order as to costs. This order be complied with by the opposite party number 3 within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        January 11, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President