DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.69 of 2011

      Smt. Manju Kanojia,

      W/o Sri R.D. Premi,

      R/o 916, Shekhupura Colony,

      Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                1.  TVS Motor Company Ltd.

                    Post Box No.4, Harita Hosur,

                    635109, Tamilnadu.

                   Through its General Manager, (Service).

               2. Manager,

                   Speed Motor Company Dealer,

                   3, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow.

               3.  Manager,

                    Speed Motor Service Center,

                   3, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow.     

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of the cost of the vehicle of Rs.65,800.00 with 24% interest and compensation of Rs.24,000.00 from OP No.1 and cost of litigation of Rs.10,000.00 from the OPs.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that she had purchased a motor cycle TVS Apache No.UP32 CW 0919 manufactured by OP No.1 from the agency of OP No.2 on 28.07.2009 for Rs.63,000.00 on which there was a warranty of 24 months or first 30,000 km of each and every part. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant was not properly running, and within a week it was giving shocks and thereafter

-2-

its engine used to become off. Initially the Complainant thought that it is minor problem either due to blockage of petrol or defect in spark plug but when the mistake was not removed in the vehicle then the son of Complainant approached the OP No.3, the service centre of OP No.1 within 3-4 days from the date of purchase where the vehicle was checked by the mechanic available there and it was told to the son of Complainant that it is new vehicle and after first service the deficiency in the vehicle will automatically be removed.  The Complainant was consistently facing problem in vehicle. Thereafter on 16.08.2009 the Complainant approached the OP No.3 the service centre of OP No.1 with vehicle for servicing. The vehicle was checked by the engineer/mechanic and when the Complainant told the problem to the mechanic then mechanic told that vehicle after first service will run properly and all the problems of the vehicle will be automatically removed. In spite of first service and assurance given by the mechanic/engineer the vehicle was not running properly and problems remained the same. The Complainant further approached after 3-4 days to the service centre and the mechanic told her that she should give the vehicle for one or two days for properly checking the vehicle, hence the Complainant gave the vehicle to the service centre, which was returned after one or two days by saying that now the vehicle is in original condition in which it should be and all the earlier problems are now fixed. Even after returning from the service centre the vehicle was not running properly and it was in the same bad condition. The Complainant thereafter got services of the vehicle done on 04.10.2009, 31.02.2010, 13.04.2010, 23.08.2010 respectively. The deficiency in vehicle could not be removed by the mechanics despite changing the carburettor of the vehicle. After second service, the average of the vehicle became exceptionally less and the mechanics were unanimously were of the opinion that there is manufacturing

-3-

defect in the vehicle which cannot be cured at the service centre. The Complainant approached the service centre many times and all the times the mechanics checked the vehicle and on every occasion they wasted 1 or 1.5 litre petrol while making service and the Complainant had to run at least 20 times to the service centre and always almost a day and petrol. The Complainant within the warranty period gave the legal notice dated 28.04.2010 to the OP No.2 and OP No.2 enquired from the OP No.3 and informed the Complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the Complainant may approach the OP No.1 directly and he has nothing to do with the vehicle after sale. The Complainant again within 2 years from the date of warranty gave the legal notice dated 19.07.2010 to the OPs for change of vehicle with damages and cost. The OP No.2 gave the reply by his letter dated 03.08.2010 that if there is any problem in the vehicle then the Complainant may contact the service centre. The OP No.1also gave the reply dated 06.08.2010 to the effect that he is verifying the facts from all the concerns and revert the Complainant back when he will obtain the information. The Complainant approached OP No.2 and 3 on 23.08.2010 who further checked the vehicle but even thereafter the defects could not be removed at the level of the OP No.2 and 3 and the defects are still continued. The OP No.1 gave the reply dated 12.11.2010 totally denying about any manufacturing defect. The OP No.1 is not replacing the engine which is deficiency in service and OP No.2 approached many times to the service centre but all in vain, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the motor cycle manufactured by OP No.1are sold “on principle to principle basis” to its various dealers. The owner of motor cycle is informed regarding features of the motor cycle and its instructions. It is only when the QC test is found to be OK that the dealer delivers the vehicle to the purchaser. Under the warranty, the OP repair or some times

-4-

replace the components if required and if the vehicle crosses the warranty period, the dealer may replace any component or parts upon confirmation of the vehicle owner and charges the price for the same. The vehicle though is within warranty period, there is no obligation on the manufacturer or dealer to replace the vehicle. The allegation of shocks and engine becoming off is totally baseless and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is wrong on the part of the Complainant to say that the vehicle became defective just after its purchase as he had availed services on 16.08.2009, 04.10.2009, 31.02.2009, 13.04.2010 and on 23.08.2010. All the services were rendered by the OPs in proper and good manner. If any component of the vehicle is found to be defective then the OPs replace the component only and not the vehicle/engine. The Complainant has used the vehicle for about 11760 kms and has been availing “service support” from the OP No.3 and other authorised service centres of OP No.1, hence there is no question for the Complainant to allege any deficiency in service. The Complainant’s vehicle was attended by the OP No.3 from time to time whenever the Complainant’s vehicle came for services. The vehicle is in perfect mechanical condition and there is no defect or deficiency in the vehicle. The third parties personnel have neither agreed nor admitted that the vehicle possesses any manufacturing defect. The Complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the engine or monetary reliefs claimed and this complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

          The Complainant has filed her affidavit with 10 annexures. She has also filed supplementary affidavit with 4 annexures and also rejoinder affidavit. She has also filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit with 1 annexure. The OPs have filed 1 paper with their objection. The OPs have filed counter affidavit of Sri S.B. Singh to the evidence of complaint filed by Complainant with 1 paper. They have filed counter

-5-

affidavit of Sri Priyank Sankhdhar in support of supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by Complainant with 1 annexure. The OPs have also filed written arguments.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant’s vehicle became defective many a times during the period of warranty and that it could not be repaired properly, and whether the OPs have committed unfair trade practice/deficiency in service in selling out the defective piece to the Complainant or not and consequences thereof.

          The case of the Complainant is that within a week of the purchase of the vehicle it started giving problems such as giving shocks and the engine becoming off. When the vehicle was taken to the mechanic then the Complainant was told that after first service the vehicle run properly and all the problems of the vehicle will automatically be removed but despite service the vehicle did not run properly and the problems remained the same. Even after giving the vehicle for two days to the service centre the problem could not be removed. Despite repairs such as changing of the carburettor the average of the vehicle was also much less but every time it was taken to the service centre the problems could not be removed. The OPs have taken the stand that whenever the vehicle was taken to the service centre the problems were solved to the satisfaction of the Complainant but the stand of the OPs in this regard does not appear to be holding much water as the Complainant, when the vehicle was not repaired properly sent a notice to the OPs regarding the problems in the vehicle and on such notice the OPs have also replied to the notice a copy of which has been filed as annexure 8 with his complaint wherein it is mentioned that whenever the vehicle was taken to

the workshop the entire job was done to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Again a letter was written by the OPs to the

-6-

Complainant’s Counsel as is evident from the copy of the same filed as annexure 9 wherein it is mentioned that with regard to the problems faced by the Complainant in his vehicle, they do not have full information, hence will revert to him as soon as they receive the information. Ironically this letter is dated 06.08.2010 whereas the earlier letter of the OPs to the Complainant is dated 03.08.2010 wherein he states that the problems caused to the Complainant were attended to the satisfaction of the Complainant whereas in the letter dated 06.08.2010 the OPs state that they do not have the full information regarding the problems of the vehicle. This appears to contradictory as to how they state in the letter dated 03.08.2010 that they attended the problems of the vehicle and the work was done to the satisfaction of the Complainant whereas on 06.08.2010 they state that they do not have full information regarding the vehicle which shows that the OPs are not clear about the problems and its redressal by the OPs. The Complainant has stated on oath in his affidavit that his vehicle started creating problems just after the purchase of the vehicle and that the vehicle could not be properly repaired as there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle admitted by the mechanic of the OPs. The OPs have assailed the issue of manufacturing defect in the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has run for a distance of about more than 11,000 kms and therefore it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect but the fact remains that the vehicle became defective after its purchase and that it could not be repaired properly by the OPs even though the OPs state that the vehicle was properly repaired but there is evidence to show that the vehicle was not properly repaired and that is why in the years to follow also the Complainant had to spent a lot of expenditure on the repair of the vehicle as is evident from the copies of the job sheets dated 04.01.2012, 03.03.2012, 23.01.2012, 15.07.2012, 18.07.2012. All these documents filed

-7-

by the Complainant show that the vehicle could not be repaired properly within warranty period and even thereafter and that is why the Complainant had given the vehicle for repairs many a times which have not only caused financial burden but also physical and mental harassment. The only conclusion that can be drawn on the entire discussion is that the engine of the vehicle was defective one and that is why it kept creating problems for the Complainant, therefore there is clear cut unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service on the part of the OPs to provide a defective engine to the Complainant whereby she had to suffer a lot, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the engine of the vehicle replaced. As she has suffered a lot physically and mentally, hence she is entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace the engine and to repair the vehicle completely and in case they are not able to do so then they will pay Rs.40,000.00 (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) to the Complainant.

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

     (Anju Awasthy)                                          (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                                    President    Dated: 11 August, 2015