State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh

K C Gupta, President; Maj Gen S P Kapoor, and Mrs Devinderjit Dhatt, Members

Raj Kumar – Appellant

Versus

Shiva Automobiles and Ors. – Respondents

R.B.T. No. 671 of 2008 in Appeal No. 918 of 2002

Decided on 1.10.2008

 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(g)(o) - Deficiency in service - Allegation that scooter purchased by the Complainant giving numerous problems - No remark by Complainant on any job card regarding any dissatisfaction with regard to any job carried out - No specific problem pointed out - No expert evidence brought on record to support the allegations - No mention in complaint as to what are the defects that have come in the scooter or what extra qualities were promised which now it does not possess - Order of District Forum confirmed.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Important Point

Deficiency in service or manufacturing defect cannot be accepted unless specific deficiencies/defects are pointed out and proved.

Judgement

S P Kapoor, President - This is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 28.5.2002 in Complaint case No. 217 of 3.9.2001 - Raj Kumar v. Shiva Automobiles and another.
 

2.  Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that he purchased an LML Prithvi - TS scooter from OP No. 1- Shiva Automobiles and paid Rs. 24,946/- as the price of the scooter vide invoice No. 1742 dated 17.3.2001. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of scooter, OP No. 1 also gave guarantee for one year against every type of defect, to the Complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the said scooter was giving number of problems like huge noise coming from engine, numerous defects in the whole machinery i.e. starting kick and pick-up since the date of its purchase, which were not removed even despite several services got done in time from OP No.1. It is next averred that the Complainant lodged several complaints regarding the said defects besides written requests dated 28.6.2001 sent by postal receipts No. 370 & 371 but to no effect. The Complainant, it is averred, served a legal notice dated 8.8.2001 vide postal receipts No. 4648 to 4650 upon the OPs, which were again not replied to by the OPs. Alleging this action on the part of OPs as deficiency in service, the Complainant had filed this complaint seeking directions to the OPs to replace the scooter or, in alternative, refund its price i.e. Rs. 24,946/ - along with interest.. The Complainant has further sought a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony along with costs.   3.  The version of OPs No. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, is that the scooter of the Complainant was in perfect running condition and there was no problem with its engine, machinery, etc. It was pleaded that the Complainant kept on visiting the OPs for services of his scooter and every time, he received back the scooter after his full satisfaction.   4.  None appeared on behalf of OP No. 3 General Manager, Customer Care, LML Ltd before the District Forum; hence it was proceeded against ex parte.   5.  The learned District Forum after perusing Exhibits C9 to C20 and R2 to R5, which are copies of job cards vide which the service of scooter of the Complainant was done, observed that in none of the job cards, the Complainant complained of any problem relating to engine, machinery, pick-up, etc. as alleged in the complaint. As per the learned District Forum, the Complainant purchased the scooter on 17.3.2001 vide invoice (Ex.C2) and as per the job card he visited OP No. 1 on 26.3.2001 for the first time for servicing his scooter, which had run 610 kms as recorded in the job card. The learned District Forum further observed from the job card that the scooter of the Complainant had run 610 kms just within nine days i.e. 70 kms approximately per day. The learned District Forum next referred to Exhibit R5 i.e. copy of job card dated 20.7.2001, on which date the Complainant lastly approached OP No. 1 for servicing of scooter i.e. before filing of the complaint. In view of the learned District Forum, as per job card dated 20.7.2001, the scooter of the Complainant had run 11,200 kms only in four months i.e. 93 kms per day, which shows that the scooter of the Complainant was in good running condition and there was no manufacturing defect in the same, The Complainant, it was observed, had signed all the job cards, after getting the service of the scooter done from OP No.1, to his entire satisfaction. Holding that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter of the Complainant and no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint with no orders as to costs.   6.  Aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Forum, the Complainant filed the present appeal before the Punjab State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon'ble National Commission. It is surprising to note that since the date of filing of the complaint on 11.7.2002, none had appeared on behalf of the Appellant-Complainant till the date of final hearing i.e. 15.9.2008. Initially, Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate appeared on some dates i.e. lastly on 29.11.2007 but thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant till the date of final hearing i.e.15.9.2008 despite due service upon Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate. Since none appeared on behalf of either party on 15.9,2008, the case was fixed for 30.9.2008 for pronouncement of orders. Since 30.9.2008 was declared holiday on account of Agarsen Jayanti, it was proposed to pronounce the order on 1.10.2008.   7.  We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and the written arguments filed by the Appellant.   8.  In the instant case, it is clear that the scooter had been purchased by the Complainant on 17.3.2001. It is not rebutted that the said scooter had run 11,200 kms in a short span of four months. Further, there are, on record, job cards/invoices Exhibits C-15 to C-20, wherein the Complainant has signed but there is no remark by him regarding any dissatisfaction with regard to the job carried out. Furthermore, a perusal of all these job cards and invoices did not indicate any major repair having been carried out to the scooter. Had the Complainant any grouse with regard to the scooter or the repairs/services done, he should not have either signed the job cards/ invoices or should have recorded his dissatisfaction on the same but, for reasons better known to him, the same has not been done. Also, there is no evidence on record of any specific problem with the scooter or any of its major assemblies or any major repair to the same. There is also no expert evidence led by the Complainant to prove his contention that the scooter in question is defective or has any inherent manufacturing defect. Even In the written arguments, the Appellant has only stated that the Complainant had purchased a costly scooter for its extra qualities on the assurance of the OPs, He has further stated that the OPs could not remove the defects In the machinery to his satisfaction. However, as noted earlier, the Appellant-Complainant has not indicated as to what were those specific defects, which could not be removed and what extra qualities were promised in the scooter, which it did not possess.   9.  Thus, in view of the above discussion, we find that the impugned order is well reasoned and, legally, there is no infirmity in the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, as it lacks substance and the impugned order is well reasoned and suffers from no legal infirmity. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. However, due to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.   Appeal dismissed.