National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Baljit Kaur vs M/S. Divine Motors & Anr. on 8 June, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1336 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 09/03/2017 in Appeal No. 818/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. BALJIT KAUR W/O. INDERJIT SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 1815, GALI NO. 11, RAM NAGAR COLONY, AMRITSAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. DIVINE MOTORS & ANR. PUTLIGHAR, NEAR NAVPREET HOSPITAL, G.T. ROAD, AMRITSAR PUNJAB 2. INDIA YAMAHA MOTORS PVT. LTD., A-3, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NOIDA DADRI ROAD, SURAJPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-201306 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. GUDIPATI G. KASHYAP For the Respondent :
Dated : 08 Jun 2017 ORDER ANUP K. THAKUR
This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant - Baljeet Kaur against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for Short, 'State Commission) dated 9.3.2017 in FA No.818 of 2016 vide which the appeal had been decided in favour of the appellant/opposite party no.1 - M/s Divine Motors.
Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows.The petitioner/complainant purchased a Scooter - Activa Alfa bearing registration No.PB02CBS7618 on 19.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.49,719/-.It is alleged that on the very second day, the complainant noticed that the vehicle was going in one side, its handle was cracked and its 'chimta' was also bent. This was brought to the notice of the respondent no.1/opposite party No.1 who did not pay heed and who instead got the signature of the complainant on a paper to say that the scooter was working properly.The petitioner/complainant claims to have made a request for replacement of the vehicle as the same was "absolutely in defective condition" and was "consuming the petrol to the maximum extent".Holding the respondent no.1 responsible for deficiency of service and for selling the defective vehicle, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs from the District Forum :-
"That the opposite party be directed to refund the amount of 13192/- (Rs.9000 + 2096 + 2096 two instalments) in all Rs.4192/- alongwith 20% p.a. interest thereon from the date of purchase till the opposite party make the payment.
Opposite party be directed to take back his defective vehicle after paying the amount paid by the complainant as the complainant do not want to retain with him defective vehicle.
Compensation for Rs.20,000/- be also granted to the complainant as the opposite party is used abusive language and insulted the complainant when she visited to their showroom (i.e. by owner Simer and his servant) Cost of the complaint be also granted."
Respondent no.1 contested the complaint before the District Forum, questioning its maintainability and also on the ground that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd.The respondent no.1 drew attention to the fact that the complainant was a novice in driving the scooter and therefore, suffered accident which resulted in damages beyond warranty.It is further submitted that the complainant came with the vehicle to the respondent no.1 on 2.6.2015 after she had met with an accident resulting in damage to the muffler cover.This was replaced against payment and the vehicle was handed over in a satisfactory condition to her satisfaction.Thereafter the complainant again came on 18.6.2015, for first free service of her scooter.The vehicle was duly serviced, its engine oil was changed against charge and the complainant went back satisfied. Thereafter, complainant again came on 3.8.2015,this time after an accident in which the handlebar had come out, 'chimta' had bent to one side.However, it was found that 'chimta' was alright and the accidented handlebar was repaired. The complainant again came back on 5.8.2015 with complaints of the scooter.The scooter was checked and found to be alright.Another visit took place on 13.8.2015 in which the complainant gave in writing the fact that she was satisfied.Soon afterwards, the complainant allegedly came back and asked that her scooter be replaced with a new one.
Heard counsel for the petitioner.The main ground on which the revision petition has been filed is that the State Commission had not fully appreciated the facts of the case while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the District Forum.It was submitted that the very fact that the complainant had to repeatedly take the vehicle to the respondents itself was sufficient to establish that there was not only deficiency of service but also a possibility of a manufacturing defect.In support, the counselcited judgmentofthis CommissioninRP No.1407 of 2015 titled Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Col. S.K.Gawari & Ors. II (2016) CPJ 381 (NC) in which it has been held as below :-
"The mere fact that a newly purchased vehicle had to be taken to the workshop on a number of occasions is per se tantamount to deficiency in service."
Further, the State Commission relied upon certain job sheets placed before the State Commission and the District Forum which were allegedly fabricated documents. Hence, the order of the State Commission was liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that both the fora below erred in holding that there was no technical report to substantiatethe complaint that the vehicle hadmanufacturing defect.In counsel's opinion, the petitioner/complainant had put on record affidavit of an expert, one Mr. Navpreet Singh, a mechanic by profession and proprietor of M/s Sanshu Service Point.The counsel also pleaded that the State Commission erred in relying upon the fact that the petitioner/complainant did not possess a regular driving license but only a learner'slicense, thereby suggesting that this itself has no bearing on whetherthe vehicle had any manufacturing defect or not.
On a careful consideration of facts on record and the oral submissions made by the counsel, it appears that the State commission's order is based on a reasonable appreciation of all the facts and evidence placed before it.The petitioner/ complainant admittedly did not possess a regular driving license and was on the road with a learner driving license. While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant.Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred- that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect(s).
The fact that the petitioner/complainant was driving on a learner license is certainly a reasonable explanation of the accident that seems to have been responsible for the condition of the vehicle.This cannot be later on made to appear like a manufacturing defect.The respondent no.1, from the records available, did take care of the vehicle by way of necessary repairs and therefore, cannot be held to have been deficient in service.
In view of the discussion above, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is upheld. No order as to costs.
...................... ANUP K THAKUR PRESIDING MEMBER