Haryana

Kurukshetra

152/2018

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

VPS Motor - Opp.Party(s)

Roshan Sharma

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    152 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:         19.07.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision: 29.07.2022

 

Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Kadam Singh, r/o village and Post Office Hathira, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. VPS Motors, Amin Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.
2. Hero Motor Corp Limited, registered office 37 K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Sector-33, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Roshan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 11.09.2019.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that in the month of August 2016, complainant had purchased a Splendor I-Smart 110 bearing Registration No.HR-07X-4850, Chassis No.MBLJA06AXGHJ02633 from OP No.1, but after few days from its purchase, it started creating problem. In this regard, he requested the OPs that the motorcycle was having mechanical problems in its engine, meter problems. He visited to company/service centre with his motorcycle to rectify the problems, but OP No.1 totally failed to rectify the same. In this regard, he sent a legal notice for change the defected motorcycle and paying the compensation but OPs sent false reply to that legal notice. He took his motorcycle to OP No.2 service centre, but they started the same and when the complainant start the motorcycle then after few distance, it stopped suddenly and not started again, as its engine ceased automatically. He again requested the OPs to replace the motorcycle, but they totally denied to replace the same, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, they suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining them to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written stating therein that admitting about purchasing of motorcycle in question by the complainant in the month of August 2016. It is stated that the first service of the same had done on 05.11.2016, which was without any defects reported by the OPs. Subsequently, many services were done and nothing was reported by the complainant. Further on 13.4.2017, complainant met with an accident on the said motorcycle and reported to the OPs and they changed leg guard, silencer cover and front mudguard and glass accessory, which diligently repaired and perform his job efficiently. Subsequently, the complainant approached the OPs on 29.4.2017 and 08.6.2017 for general repair and there was no major defect reported by the complainant. Then he approached the OPs on 15.05.2017 for a problem with the engine noise, which was repaired under warranty without taking any consideration. Again where there is engine noise problem and speed meter problem and the complainant visited on 10.11.2017, it was changed with new noisy part of the engine and new speed meter. On 03.02.2018, the complainant again visited and reported few problems which were duly attended by OPs with due satisfaction of complainant. The Cam Chain and Roller of motorcycle has been changed, which was under warranty. Again on 15.12.2018, the complainant again visited the service centre of OPs and Gear Comp Starter Drive has been changed under warranty. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the month of August 2016, complainant had purchased a Splendor 1 Smart 110 motorcycle from OP No.1, but after few days from its purchase, it started creating problem. In this regard, he requested the OPs that the motorcycle was having mechanical problems in its engine, meter problems. He visited to company/service centre with his motorcycle to rectify the problems, but OP No.1 totally failed to rectify the same. In this regard, he sent a legal notice for change the defected motorcycle and paying the compensation but OPs sent false reply to that legal notice. The complainant again requested the OPs to replace the motorcycle, but they totally denied to replace the same, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that the motorcycle was purchased in the month of August 2016 and the first service of the same had done on 05.11.2016, which was without any defects reported by the OPs. Subsequently, many services were done and on 05.04.2017 i.e. after the lapse of five moths, nothing was reported by the complainant any inherent defect in the motorcycle. Further, on 13.04.2017, complainant met with an accident on the said motorcycle and reported to the OPs and they changed leg guard, silencer cover and front mudguard and glass accessory, which diligently repaired and perform his job efficiently. Subsequently, he approached the OPs on 29.4.2017 and 08.6.2017 for general repair and there was no major defect reported by the complainant. Then the complainant approached the OPs on 15.05.2017 for a problem with the engine noise, which was repaired under warranty without taking any consideration and one kit of the cylinder and roller of the engine was replaced with a new one and problem of motorcycle engine was rectified and the noise problem was removed and complainant was satisfied. Again where there is engine noise problem and speed meter problem and the complainant visited on 10.11.2017, it was changed with new noisy part of the engine and new speed meter. The complainant went satisfied from the services of OPs. On 03.02.2018, the complainant again visited and reported few problems which were duly attended by OPs with due satisfaction of complainant having signature on the job sheet of OPs. On 07.12.2018 the complainant again visited and reported few problems which were duly attended by OPs with due satisfaction of complainant having signature on the job sheet of OPs. The Cam Chain and Roller of motorcycle has been changed, which was under warranty. Again on 15.12.2018, the complainant again visited the service centre of OPs and Gear Comp Starter Drive has been changed under warranty. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

9.                There is no dispute that the complainant purchased Spelendor I-Smart 110 motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-07X-4850 from OP No.1 in the month of August 2016. There is also no dispute that the said motorcycle was having warranty for a period of five years or 70000 kilometers, whichever is earlier, from the date of purchase.

10.              As per complainant, after few days from the purchase of said motorcycle, it started creating problem and its engine ceased automatically, and in this regard, he visited to company/service centre with the motorcycle to rectify the problems, but OP No.1 neither repaired the same nor replaced the same with new one, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 specifically contended that each and every time, when the complainant approached OP No.1, with regard to service or defect of the motorcycle, he was duly attended and his grievance was resolved every time, as such, there is no deficiency in service on its part.  

11.              To support his above contentions, complainant produced Vehicle History Card as Ex.C-10 (Ex.R-1) on the case file, showing visiting history of the complainant with motorcycle in question at the Workshop of OP No.1. From perusal of said History Card, we found that the complainant visited the OP No.1 with the issue of Engine Noise in the motorcycle firstly on 15.07.20217 i.e. within one year of its purchasing and this time, OP No.1 changed Kit CYL and Pin Guide Roller. The problem of engine noise could not be resolved and the complainant again visited OP No.1 on 06.10.2017 and this time, Fender FR SRD Type-1 R321 was replaced/changed. The complainant visited OP No.1 with the same problem various times i.e. on 10.11.2017, 03.02.2018, 29.06.2018, 27.08.2018 and then on 07.12.2018 and every time OP No.1 changed various parts of the motorcycle, but could not resolved the issue of engine noise of the motorcycle, being in the warranty period. When the complainant left with no other option, then he sent a legal notice to the OPs on 01.05.2018 through registered post to redress his grievance, which was replied by the OPs denying the allegations of the complainant, but they failed to redress his grievance. No doubt, OPs denied the above allegations of the complainant, but they failed to produce any documentary evidence on the case file to prove that they had resolved the grievance of the complainant regarding noise in the engine of the motorcycle till date. In their defence, the OP No.1 only produced only Vehicle History Card as Ex.R-1 on the case file, which was also produced by the complainant as Ex.C-10.  

12.              However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OP No.1 produced Claim Status of complainant as Mark-A on the case file and contended that as per these documents, in April 2017, the motorcycle in question met with an accident and in this regard, the complainant had taken the claim from the insurance company. In this regard, the OP No.1 also pleaded in his reply that after the said accident, they changed leg guard, silencer cover and front mudguard and glass accessory of the motorcycle. For the sake of discussion, if the above contention of the OPs is admitted, even then, it would not change the fate of this case, because the OP No.1 nowhere pleaded that due to this accident, the warranty of five years of the motorcycle became void. Hence, this document Mark-A has no favour to the case of the OPs in any manner.

13.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that motorcycle in question of complainant became defective giving engine noise within the warranty period of five years and in this regard, the complainant visited the OPs time and again to resolve this issue, but the OPs failed to resolve the same, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the complaint in hand, complainant prayed for replace or refund the amount of the motorcycle, but this prayer of complainant is not plausible, because the complainant had used the motorcycle in question for about five years from the date of its purchase, so, no such direction can be given in the matter in question. Hence, the OPs are liable to repair the motorcycle in question of the complainant to his full satisfaction. The OPs are also liable to be burdened with compensation amount with litigation expenses.

14.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OPs and direct the OPs to repair the motorcycle in question of the complainant to the full satisfaction of the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to an act of deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs along with Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:29.07.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.