National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

R K Batta, Presiding Member and Anupam Dasgupta, Member

Shri Manjeet Singh – Petitioner

Versus

M/s Luxmi Automobiles & Anr – Respondents

Revision Petition No. 3086 of 2010

Decided on 12.8.2011

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(0), 15,17,19 and 21-Automobile-Manufacturing defects in Motorcycle - District Forum directed OPs to replace defective parts of engine of motorcycle and to rectify defects and ensure that motorcycle gives proper average as has been assured by OPs in brochure, alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000 - Despite adequate and reasonable reliefs and several opportunities to realise them being given to Petitioner-Complainant, he was not satisfied and persisted with making one new allegation after other - Considering affidavit of Supervisor brought on record by Respondent, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order.

(Paras 7 and 9)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed

Important Point

Complainant cannot be permitted to make one new allegation after a dispute has been settled allowing adequate and reasonable relief.

Order

Anupam Dasgupta, Member - The Petitioner was the Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short, 'the District Forum'). He had purchased a Hero Honda CD - Deluxe motorcycle from the first Respondent/Opposite Party (OP) on 09.05.2005. The motorcycle carried a warranty of two years or 30,000 kms running, whichever was earlier. It was the case of the Complainant that the motorcycle developed defects from the very beginning, which he pointed out to the dealer (OP No. 1), but the latter failed to rectify them. When his complaints were not attended to, the Complainant made written representation to OP No. 1 as well as OP No. 2 (manufacturer of the motorcycle) but to no avail. OP No. 1 even refused to provide the 6th free service for which the Complainant had to pay. It was after a period of two years that the OPs replaced the defective chassis and cylinder of the motorcycle on 12.07.2007, but the remaining defects were not attended to, though they were recorded in the complaint. Finally, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the OPs to remove the defects in the motorcycle and Rs. 20,000 as compensation, Rs. 4,000 towards interest on the loan and cost.

After detailed consideration of the complaint, the District Forum gave the following directions under its order-dated 04.07.2008:

"For the reasons recorded above, we direct OPs to replace the defective parts of the engine of the motorcycle and rusty petrol tank with new one and to rectify the defects in the motorcycle as explained by the Complainant and ensure that the motorcycle gives proper average, as has been assured by OPs in the brochure. OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the Complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him due to defects in the motorcycle. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The complaint stands disposed off in terms of the orders made above."

Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the Complainant/Petitioner filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission'). By its order-dated 15.04.2010, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

The Complainant, thereafter, filed an execution petition before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the execution petition with the following observations:

"Despite our direction dated 04.01.2010, Complainant did not take the vehicle to the workshop of OP for checking and rather sent his son on the plea that he is sick. But no medical certificate is filed. It appears that Complainant is not interested to get the checking of his vehicle done. He was also not present on the last date and is pursuing the execution proceedings unnecessarily. In view of our observation, the execution is dismissed. Cost of Rs. 200 tendered by the OP was refunded by the son of the Complainant."

Against this order also, the Complainant/Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal in limine by observing as under:

"In the instant case, in order to redress the grievance of the Complainant, the District Forum has directed the Appellant/Complainant to produce his motorcycle in question at the workshop of the OPs. But the Complainant has not taken any steps in this regard, for which there was no fault on the part of the OPs. Even otherwise also, the order of the District Forum clearly shows that on the last date of hearing of the execution petition, Complainant was not present but has sent his son, which shows his unwillingness and un-cooperative attitude in the execution petition. We feel that Appellant has scant respect for the order passed by the Court. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality nor ambiguity in the impugned order. Hence, no case of interference in the impugned order is made out."

In the course of hearing of this revision petition, this Commission directed the Petitioner, by its order dated 14.01.2011 to take his motorcycle to P P Systems and Services, an authorised service centre of Hero Honda at Karnal on 18.02.2011 at 10.30 a.m. This service centre was selected in consultation with the Petitioner. It was made clear to the Petitioner that if the motorcycle was not taken for rectification of the alleged defects on that date to the above-mentioned Hero Honda Service Centre, no further proceedings would be permitted to be initiated and the execution petition would stand terminated.

We have heard Gurpreet Singh, son of the Petitioner and Mrs Girija Wadhwa, Advocate on behalf of M/s Luxmi Automobiles. Mrs Wadhwa has pointed out that in compliance of the directions dated 14.01.2011, the Petitioner took his motorcycle in question to M/s P P Systems and Services, an authorised service centre of Hero Honda Motors Ltd at Karnal on 18.02.2011. In this context, she also drew attention to the affidavit of one Rampal, Supervisor of the Service Centre. The relevant part of the affidavit reads as under:

"1.	That the deponent has been working in the capacity of a Supervisor with P P Systems and Services, SCO 87-88, Mahila Ashram Complex, Behind Bus Stand, Karnal, Haryana, which is an authorised Hero Honda service and repair centre and has an experience of 18 years in this line of work.

2.	That the Complainant Shri Manjit Singh along with a companion visited our premises on 18.02.2011 at about 12.10 p.m. with the motorcycle bearing No. HR 05 Q 1907 and, to examine the same, we opened a job card bearing No. 11502. Copy of the job card is appended as A-2.

3.	Shri Rakesh, who is trained by Hero Honda Motors Ltd for service and repair of motorcycles, along with the companion of Manjit Singh took the motorcycle for a test drive from Odometer reading 41,910 kms to 41,917 kms and found nothing amiss with the functioning of the motorcycle in question at all.

4.	That however, it is required to be recorded that since the Complainant Manjit Singh has already got installed a non-Hero Honda recommended engine plate in the motorcycle from outside, there is some sound emanating from the engine, which is not even remotely connected with the problem of "Engine stopping suddenly while plying the vehicle", as is recorded in the Final Order dated 14.01.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Commission.

5.	That thereinafter, when the Complainant was duly informed that there was no problem in the motorcycle as was being claimed by him, he got angry, argued with us and left the dealership premises without signing the job card."

This position is also borne out by the entries in the job card that was opened and recorded at P P Systems and Services.

Gurpreet Singh, son of the Petitioner/Complainant, however, claimed that the engine plate had not been changed, as stated in the said affidavit and that he had the voice recording of the conversation at the premises of P P Systems and Services.

From the course of developments before the Fora below as well as this Commission, and particularly paragraphs 4 & 5 of the affidavit of Shri Rampal, Supervisor referred to above, we have no doubt that despite adequate and reasonable reliefs and several opportunities to realise them being given to the Petitioner/Complainant, he was not satisfied and persisted with making new allegation one after the other. In any case, considering the affidavit of the Supervisor of P P Systems and Services brought on record by Respondent No.1, there is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission.