Sri B.C Sahoo , Member - This is a complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act by the purchaser of one motorcycle against the vender and manufacturer company for compensation and / or replacement by a new vehicle for deficiency of service.
The case of complainant in short is that the complainant purchased one Bajaj Pulsar model No. 2013, on 03-01-2014 bearing Registration No. OD-25A-2263 from the OP No.1. The purchase was under hypothycation scheme from Bajaj Finance Ltd, Moharastra. The complainant availed free service vide cash memo vide No. 1550 dt 15-02-2014, No. 2149 dt 25-07-2014 and No. 2864 dt 07-09-2014 respectively.
After 2nd free service the right rear fork (shock absorber) was found defective and complainant registered complaint before OP No. 1 on 26-07-2014. The OP No.1 assured to solve the problem in course of free third service and in course of 3rd servicing OP No.1 assured complainant that he would replace the same within 7days. But there after despite several request in regular interval the OP No.1 did not keep his promise. On 18-11-2014 when the complainant approached OP No.1 for replacement of said defective fork the OP No. 1 and the staff misbehaved and threatened him. The complainant is unable to get the service in respect of his purchased vehicle and for that he underwent mental agony and financial loss. As OP No. 2 and 3 are controlling authority of OP No.1, this complaint is filed on 21-11-2014 praying compensation of Rs 1,50,000/- or to provide new vehicle on replacement.
The OP No.1 appeared took time to file written version but did not choose to take part in hearing so he was set ex-parte on 01.01.2015OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear to context the case. Hence they are set ex-pate on 19.12.2014.
The complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit along with the photocopy of voter ID card, (2). money receipts amounting to Rs.34,000/- to-wards credit collection on purchase of vehicle, certificate of registration and (3) money receipt of service center and original owner's manual having warranty certificate from page 32 to 35. The complainant has also filed evidence on affidavit and written argument.
Findings
Point for consideration:
Whether complainant has suffered for deficiency of service by Ops by not replacing / repairing the defective fork of purchased of motorcycle No. OD-25A-2263 and to what relief the complaint is entitled ?
Ans:- In absence of any objection on the side of Ops the case of complaint is to be tested on the basis of documents filed by the complainant and evidence on affidavit filed. The evidence on affidavit get supports from the photocopy of money receipt, registration certificate and owner manual containing warranty, it may be stated here, OP No. 1 the dealer himself after taking adjournment has not filed any written version, it thus clearly proves that complainant has purchased alleged motorcycle from Op No. 1 on 03-01-2014 which was under coverage of warranty. It is also proved that the complainant has raised the issue of defective shock absorber before OP No. 1.
The Op No. 1 was under obligation to honour the warranty provided at the time of sell of motorcycle to complainant. Having not honoured the warranty the OP
No. 1 has caused deficiency in service. Hence the OP No. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service for not replacing/repairing the defective parts of the vehicle. Because of this reason we are satisfied that Ops have caused deficiency in service in not rectifying the defects of the motorcycle of the complainant as agreed under warranty. For this deficiency of service the complainant as a consumer under Ops is entitled to relief under C.P. Act.
The complainant has only stated, he has suffered mental agony and financial loss for which he may be compensated Rs 1,50,000/- and to replace the vehicle by new one. The compensation for harassment and financial loss has not been specified. Under this circumstance we find it proper to award a sum of Rs 5,000/- towards mental agony of harassment and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation cost. With regard to defect in vehicle of right rear fork ( shock absorber) the Ops are directed to replace the same within seven days of production of vehicle before OP No.1 In case the Ops failed to comply with the above direction, all the Ops are jointly severally liable to return the sell price of the motorcycle, on receipt of the motorcycle from the complainant. Accordingly the complaint petition is disposed off. Hence we order;
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part . The OPs are directed to replace the shock absorber within seven days of the vehicle of the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to-wards mental agony & harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost. In case the OPs failed to comply with above direction they are jointly and severally liable to return the sell price along with compensation amount to complainant after taking back the vehicle within two months from the date of production of motorcycle before OP No.1 by complainant.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 19th January,2015.
