PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 50/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Mr.Braja Kishore Biswal,

At-Sanabada Gopalpur, PO-Rajnagar

Dist-Kendrapada-754225, Odisha.

At present At-Bhatra, Dhanupali, Sambalpur-768005

Mob No. 8660678740.                                                     ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. TVS Motor Company,

Chaitanya No. 12, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam,

2. Proprietor Kishore Automobile.

Ground Floor, Ainthapali, Sambalpur-768004.

Near Tata Nagar Petrol pumb.                     .…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.No.1                :- Sri. S.K.Nayak, Adv.
3. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. P.K. Panigrahi & Associates

Date of Filing:12.02.2024,  Date of Hearing :01.07.2024,  Date of Judgement :06.08.2024

Presented byDr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant purchased a bike on 23.08.2023 from O.P. No.2 for an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- vide invoice No. 562. After some days the Complainant found problem in gear shifting and in neutral also vehicle was moving. A grievance made to O.P.No.1, who forwarded the grievance to O.P.No.2. In first servicing Milan Pradhan, workshop Manager noticed the problem. Area sales Manager also came to know the issue. The mechanics believing sensor problem replaced the sensor but after some days again same issue raised. Area Manager told the part is not available and requested to return home. It took 5 months for arrival of the part and they called the Complainant to workshop. Gear shaft was changed but no problem resolved. The O.P. No.2 called the Complainant but reluctantly Complainant came. The O.P. no.2 told to replace gear changer. Bike was kept for 4-5 days but issue was not resolved. The workshop manger told that only position of gear was changed. The new workshop manager told to replace gear changer. Bike was kept for 2-3 days but issue was not resolved. Complainants were made to O.P.No.1, five time the O.P.No.2  kept the vehicle for repair but problem was not resolved.

Being aggrieved complaint was filed.

2. The O.P. No.1, manufacturer in reply submitted that there is no any manufacturing defects in the vehicle nor any deficiency in service. There is no privity on contract with the Complainant. O.P.No.2 independently dealt the matter and O.P. No.1 is not responsible. The Complainant availed TVS M warranty for the vehicle which was applicable for 5 years or 50,000km. The O.P.No.1 is not a necessary party. Expert opinion has not been submitted. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering O.P./manufacturer.
3. The O.P.NO.2, service provider submitted that the Complainant purchased TVS APACHE RTR 160 bearing Engine No. AE8GN2212136 vide invoice No. 5662 dated 23.02.2022 for Rs. 1,17,655/- from O.P.No,2 complaint filed on 31.10.2022 has been resolved. During free service issue of sensor arose and rectified on 16.11.2022. On 30.12.2023 complaint made relating to gear shifting. It was replaced vide jobsheet dated 20.02.2023, 25.10.2023 and 30.12.2023. The 16.01.2024 job sheet is filed. The O.P. NO.2 has no power to change defective part without permission of O.P.No.1. All possible services have been provided to Complainant and there is no deficiency on the part of O.P.No.2.
4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.P.No.1. The Complainant purchased the vehicle vide invoice No. 562 for Rs.1,17,655/-. The vehicle registered with RTA, Sambalpur bearing No. OD-15V-1992. The Complainant filed the mails sent to customer care on different occasion. The O.P.No.2 attended the vehicle and filed job sheets dated 31.10.2022, 16.11.2022, 20.02.2023, 27.05.2023, 30.12.2023 and 23.01.2024. From job sheet dated 16.11.2022 it reveals that the Complainant raised gear shift problem. The gear problem was continuing till 30.12.2023 and 23.01.2024. The mechanic repeatedly reflected the same issue. It proves that there is defect in the gear and after repeated repair also the same problem existed, which is nothing but a manufacturing defect. Perused the video clip produced by Complainant. In neutral also the vehicle was running.

The O.P.No.2 is the seller and service provider and tried their best to provide service to Complaint but the issues were not resolved. The job chart signed by the mechanics prove that there is inherent defect relating to gear and it could not be rectified for which complaint has been filed. The manufacturer can not escape from his liability after sale of the vehicle to the dealer on principal basis.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the vehicle with same specification model within one month of this order. In case of non-replacement the O.P.NO.1 shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,17,655 with 7% interest from date of order till realisation. The O.P.No.1 is to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.

            Order pronounced in open court on 6^th day of August, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.