Haryana

Kurukshetra

184/2016

Gurlal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yash Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.184/16.

Date of instt. 6.7.16. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 10.04.2018.

 

Gurlal Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of House No.2290, Sector-3, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Yash Motors, Kurukshetra, Near New Bus Stand, Sector-13, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor (Dealer).
2. Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, through its Official concerned D-1 Block, Plot No.18/2,(Part), M.I.D.C. Chinchwad Pune.

 

..………Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

 

Present:             Complainant in person.

     Op No.1 exparte.

     Sh. Paras Manocha, Adv. for OP No2.

 

ORDER

 

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

2.                  It is stated in the complaint that on 7.7.2014 complainant purchased a Mahindra Centro Bike from Op No.1 and got registered vide registration No.HT-07U/4914. At the time of purchasing the above said bike, Op No.1 assured about the good quality of the product and further assured that within warranty period, the Ops would provide the best services in case of any defect in it. The above said bike was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning as there was various problems, i.e. extreme vibration in handle, knocking sound from the engine etc. The complainant visited the show room of OP No.1 on 9^th Jul, 2014 and mechanic of OP No.1 ensured that the problem will be solved in the first service. Thereafter in the 3rd and 4^th week of July, 2014 the complainant visited the OP No.1 for this problem. Fortunately, engineer of Op No.1 was present there and the engineer served the bike and gave assurance that the bike will go smooth. The first service of the bike was also got done by the complainant but the problem still remains in the bike. The complainant got connected with customer care of Op No.2 qua problem in his bike and received reply from the customer care. The customer care assigned by problem to Territory Service Manager, who visited at Kurukshetra on 6.10.2014 and checked mounting of the engine of bike and in the meantime Sting Arm of the bike already changed by Op No.1 but the problem still remain. The complainant time and again repeatedly requested the Ops to remove the defect but they have failed to remove the same. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the defective motor cycle with new one and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complainant after getting the service of his bike has given a satisfactory note to this effect “Today I found my bike up; to the mark. There is nothing regarding problems which were complained. So, I will withdraw my consumer complaint. I am totally satisfied with the services rendered from your end; that the vehicle in question was brought to the service center of the answering OP six times for availing the free services as per terms and conditions mentioned in the book let; that the complainant had never reported any problem in the vehicle after July, 2014 till 24.6.2016; that the customer reported vibration in handle and foot rest, engine knocking sound and working on the problem and the answering OP changed the several parts free of costs under the warranty condition and the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant; that the vehicle was brought to the authorized service station on 9.8.2016 and the vehicle was put to OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objection was reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

                 Lateron, the Op No.1 did not appear on 02.02.2018 and was proceeded exparte. 

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the relationship between OP No.1 and answering OP is on principle to principle basis; that the answering OP is not liable for any act, omission, assurance or commission done by the dealer, if any; that the time of sale of vehicle the complainant was handed over the warranty cum service booklet enumerating the terms and conditions and the complainant accepted the same and got his free service of the vehicle; that the liability of the answering OP is to the extent mentioned in the warranty booklet; that the complainant had never reported any problem in the vehicle after July, 2014 till 24.6.2016; that the customer reported vibration in handle and foot rest, engine knocking sound and working on the problem and the answering OP changed the several parts free of costs under the warranty condition and the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. On merits, the contents of complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.             We have heard both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Centro Bike from Op No.1 on 07.07.2014.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said motor-cycle was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning as there was various problems, i.e. extreme vibration in handle, knocking sound from the engine etc. and despite repair of said motor-cycle several times, the defects were not removed from the motor-cycle in question.  From the record, it is clear that the defects from the motor-cycle in question were not removed completely by Op No.2.  So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,000/- from Op No.2.                                     

8.             In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member