Haryana

Kurukshetra

186/2017

Gaurav Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

VPS Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder Singh

21 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.186 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 08.09.2017.

                                                               Date of decision:21.05.2018.

Gaurav Kumar, aged 28 years, son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.771/30, Narkatari Road, Didar Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. VPS Motors, Authorized Dealer of Hero Motocorp Ltd., Plot No.1, Dhanwanti Devi Building, Railway Amin Road, Kurukshetra-136 118, through its proprietor.
2. Hero Motocorp Ltd., 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, through its Authorized Person.

….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                   Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

         

Present:        Sh. Balwinder Singh Kamoda, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Sh. B.L.Bansal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                   Op No.2 exparte. 

                  

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gaurav Kumar against VPS Motors and another, the opposite parties.

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased one motor-cycle “Splendor I Smart” from the Op No.1 on 27.08.2016 and the Op No.1 gave warranty of engine for five years.  It is alleged that the complainant plied the said motor-cycle for one year and the engine of said vehicle started noising high.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 and disclosed the said problem and the mechanic of Op No.1 demanded Rs.5,000/- for repairing the said motor-cycle despite the fact that the said motor-cycle was within warranty period.     So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- and further to pay suitable compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.  

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 16.10.2017.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the warranty for five years was subject to certain conditions, which were mentioned in the Owner Manual Book supplied to the complainant, according to which the complainant was to get the service of the vehicle after every 90 days or after running of every 3000 kilometers of the vehicle from authorized dealer of Hero Dealers.  The complainant, however, did not follow the said conditions.  The complainant got the vehicle serviced from the answering Op five times regularly upto running of the vehicle 11724 kilometers.  However, thereafter he never approached to get his vehicle serviced according to the terms and conditions.  He got the service of the vehicle lastly on 20.02.2017 when the vehicle had run 11724 kilometers.  Thereafter, he approached the answering Op only on 22.08.2017 i.e. after about six months, when the vehicle had run 23533 kilometers in clear violation of terms and conditions of the warranty and therefore, he was not entitled to fully service under the terms and conditions of the warranty card.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                 We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

5.                 From the pleadings and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one motor-cycle “Splendor I Smart” from the Op No.1 on 27.08.2016.  The main grievance of the complainant is that after some time of its purchase, the engine of said vehicle started noising high.  According to complainant, he approached the Op No.1 and disclosed the said problem and the mechanic of Op No.1 demanded Rs.5,000/- for repairing the said motor-cycle despite the fact that the said motor-cycle was within warranty period.  In such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for repair of said motor-cycle from the Ops free of cost.

6.                 Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to repair the motor-cycle of complainant free of cost.  The order; be complied within two months from the date of order.            A copy of said order; be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.05.2018.  

                                                                                      (G.C.Garg)

                                                                                      President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)       

                                                Member