ANUPRIYA SETHI vs CMPL MOTORS PVT. LTD.

THE complainant Ms. Anupriya Sethi having felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in her Complaint Case No. 904 of 2000 decided on 24.8.2002 has filed this appeal. In the complaint case filed before the District Forum, it was alleged that the complainant purchased a Kinetic Honda ZX scooter manufactured by O.P. No. 3 - M/s. Kinetic Motor Company Limited, Pune on 3.1.2000 from the dealer - CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. THE grievance of the complainant was that immediately after the purchase, the scooter started giving trouble and she brought the various problems faced by her relating to the scooter aforesaid to the notice of O.Ps., particularly O.P. No. 1, the dealer who set right the defects but the same were not to her entire satisfaction. THE complainant got the said scooter serviced by CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., the dealer, as per the scheme of the manufacturer - O.P. No. 3 but the engine started making trouble and smoke coming out of the cylinder. This defect was also brought to the notice of dealer. Apart from it, the brake was also not working properly. Each time the complainant took the scooter for service to the dealer and she always got a stereo-typed replies. Being fed up with the replies of the dealer - CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., she wrote to the manufacturer - O.P. No. 3, M/s. Kinetic Motors Company Ltd. on 7.9.2000 and 6.10.2000 about the defects which she was having with the scooter manufactured by O.P. No. 3 and purchased through the appellant i.e. O.P. No. 1. THE manufacturer informed the complainant that the matter had been taken up with the Area Service Executive who has been asked to depute the Service Engineer to look into the matter and put the scooter for inspection. THE Service Engineer also could not remove the trouble which the scooter was giving to the complainant and as such she contacted another dealer of the manufacturer namely, M/s. Anbross - O.P. No. 2 which is the authorised service centre of kinetic scooter. M/s. Anbross advised the complainant to leave the vehicle with them and collect the same after three to four hours. When the complainant Ms. Anupriya Sethi visited M/s. Anbross the same day, she found Shri Kailkar, Service Engineer of the manufacturer present there. M/s. Anbross informed the complainant that the scooter was having no defect or fault and it refused to give to her the estimate for repairs of the alleged defects in the scooter. M/s. Anbross filled the job card but they did not obtain the signature of the complainant on it and issued gate pass to the complainant with the help of which she brought her scooter out of the workshop of M/s. Anbross. Left with no alternative, the complainant filed the complaint wherein she mentioned that the scooter was having following defects : 1. Excess smoke;

STARTING trouble; Very poor pick-up;

Poor milage (35 kms/hr.);

SCREECHING noise on the application of brakes; and lastly The most noticeable one being a constant loud noise especially when the speed of the scooter was accelerated as if there is a lot of pressure on the engine. She claimed compensation for the physical harassment and mental agony and alleged that the acts/omissions on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service rendered to her and alleged that the scooter purchased by her suffered from manufacturing defect. She prayed for issuance of direction to replace the scooter and paid damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The dealer - CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd. filed written statement admitting the transaction of sale through it in respect of the scooter in question. It was also not disputed that Ms. Anupriya Sethi, the complainant had approached O.P. No. 1 for free service and for some minor adjustment in the vehicle which were made on three dates i.e. 3.2.2000, 3.5.2000 and 2.8.2000 to the satisfaction of the complainant who signed the job cards which were filed in the shape of copies as Annexures R-2/1 to R-4/1. On 11.9.2000, Ms. Anupriya Sethi approached M/s. Anbross (O.P. No. 2) with some complaint of minor in nature which was also set right and she had signed the job card (Photocopy Annexure R-5/1) in token of her satisfaction. The scooter in question was attended to by O.P. No. 1 to the satisfaction of the complainant on 11.9.2000. It was also mentioned that in response to the letter of complainant dated 6.10.2000, the manufacturer had written to her to contact O.P. No. 1 but she never reported to O.P. No. 1 nor brought the scooter in question for check-up. O.P. No. 1 alleged that the scooter in question was in perfect condition and having no defect in it. The vehicle was thoroughly checked up by the Service Engineer of the manufacturer on 11.9.2000 and whatever minor defects were there, were removed on that very day and she had signed the satisfaction letter for prompt action taken by the manufacturer vide copy Annexure R-1/1. 3. M/s. Anbross - O.P. No. 2 filed written statement wherein the visit of the complainant to the workshop on 1.12.2001 for servicing her vehicle was admitted and it was mentioned that the vehicle showed the meter reading as 10372 kms. After checking the scooter, the complainant was told by M/s. Anbross that there was no major problem in the vehicle and it requires routine maintenance such as servicing, greasing etc. for which costs of Rs. 200/- was required to be paid as the vehicle by that time was out of period of warranty. The job card was prepared and it was signed by the complainant. It is alleged that at the time of handing over of the vehicle, the complainant told M/s. Anbross not to start the job till she came back after some time and instruct M/s. Anbross whether she wanted a job to be done or not. It is alleged that the complainant came back and requested M/s. Anbross to return her vehicle and no job was done on the vehicle on that day. The complainant also told M/s. Anbross that she would get the same job done from the dealer O.P. No. 1 free of costs because she was lifelong member of free services to the tune of four services in an year which was a Millennium Offer Scheme. The vehicle was accordingly handed over by M/s. Anbross to the complainant and no labour charges were taken from her. 4. The manufacturer filed separate written statement wherein it was contended that the scooter had been purchased on 3.1.2000 from the dealer - O.P. No. 1 after the complainant herself was satisfied about the performance during the pre-delivery inspection. It was contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter and the complainant had been freely using the vehicle continuously showing the meter reading on 11.9.2000 as 8057 kms. The manufacturer further contended that the O.Ps. rendered necessary service, promptly, efficiently and effectively whenever the complainant approached for removal of defects in the scooter and the complainant had availed free services of scooter from the dealer from time to time and she had been signing the relevant job cards. The warranty assured was duly observed and free services were rendered to the complainant regarding the scooter on 3.2.2000, 8.4.2000 and 15.7.2000. 5. The parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. On the date of hearing arguments, the complainant was absent and the complaint case was taken up for decision on merit under Rule 4 Sub-rule (8) of Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1987). The District Forum held that the complainant failed to produce any expert evidence regarding the scooter in question suffering any manufacturing defect. The District Forum, however, vide order dated 24.7.2000 had referred this matter to Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh for examining the scooter in question and for testing the same by Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering or any other competent member of the faculty. The complainant was directed to produce her scooter before the Principal of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh but she did not produce the scooter for examination and testing. Consequently, the District Forum drew a strong presumption against the complainant and recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record to hold that the scooter suffered from any manufacturing defect. The District Forum relied on the letter dated 11.9.2000 of the complainant addressed to the manufacturer wherein she expressed thanks for the prompt action taken by the Service Engineer of the manufacturer to resolve her complaint. It was further held that repairs were made to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and consequently, the District Forum recorded a finding that the complainant failed to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and that the scooter in question suffered from any manufacturing defect. Resultantly, the complaint was dismissed. 6. Notice of appeal was served on the respondents. The record of the complaint case was summoned. The appellant Ms. Anupriya Sethi appeared in person and Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 1 - CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd. while Mr. D.S. Uppal, Advocate appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

WE have heard the complainant Ms. Anupriya Sethi in person and learned Counsels for the respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It appears from perusal of impugned order that O.P. No. 3 manufacturer was proceeded ex parte . M/s. Anbross - respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. D.S. Uppal, Advocate while Mr. H.S. Uppal, Agent appeared for O.P. No. 1. In appeal, however, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 both put in appearance through Mr. D.S. Uppal, Advocate. The appellant, Ms. Anupriya Sethi submitted before us that the District Forum has failed to properly appreciate the complaint filed by her and has erred in raising presumption against her. The main dispute raised in the complaint case is about the scooter purchased by the complainant manufactured by O.P. No. 3 and sold by the dealer - O.P. No. 1 is that the scooter in question immediately after its purchase gave trouble of various types to the complainant who could not smoothly run the vehicle and she approached O.P. No. 1 as well as O.P. No. 3 with her grievances which according to the complainant were not redressed to her satisfaction. This fact has been specifically denied by the O.Ps. who have specifically taken a plea that whenever the scooter in question was brought for removal of the defects, the same was attended to and defects were removed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. The facts are highly disputed regarding the removal of the defects and the satisfaction of the complainant which according to the complainant was noted in the job cards and signatures obtained from the complainant in routine manner. Even regarding the O.P. No. 2 - M/s. Anbross, it was contended that the very presence of the Service Engineer Mr. Kailkar of the manufacturer - O.P. No. 3 there was sufficient to indicate that the O.P. No. 2 authorised service agent of the manufacturer - O.P. No. 3 would not render assistance or help to the complainant and as such the complainant, as per the version of O.P. No. 2, took the vehicle back from O.P. No. 2.

THE District Forum examined the material placed by the complainant in the shape of evidence as well as the pleadings of the complainant as also the evidence and pleadings of O.Ps., was of the considered opinion that the complainant had failed to show by any cogent or reliable evidence that the vehicle in question suffered from manufacturing defect. THE District Forum clearly pointed out that even the matter had been, at the behest of the District Forum, referred for the inspection of the scooter in question to Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to be examined by the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering or by any competent person deputed by him and despite the complainant being directed to take her vehicle for inspection there so as to find out whether the vehicle in question had manufacturing defect, the complainant failed to take the vehicle and as such no report could be obtained from the expert to whom the matter had been referred by the District Forum but she could not make it. A perusal of zimini order dated 24.7.2002 shows that the Principal of Punjab Engineering College was requested to get the scooter of the complainant examined by the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering of his College or any other competent person to check the scooter and submit its report of defect, if any. THE O.Ps. were directed to appear before the Principal on 31.7.2002. This order was passed by the District Forum in the presence of the complainant and Mr. Vipin Kaushal, Advocate for O.P. No. 1 and Mr. D.S. Uppal, Advocate for O.P. No. 2. We find from perusal of the impugned order that the complainant failed to produce the scooter for examination and testing in the Punjab Engineering College and no reason was furnished for this lapse. This has to be found in Para 12 of the impugned order. In the absence of any expert evidence regarding the scooter in question suffering from any manufacturing defect, the case of the complainant could not be accepted merely because the complainant had an apprehension that the scooter in question suffered from manufacturing defect.

THE appellant alleged before us that the letter for thanks which has been relied on by the District Forum in Para 13 of the impugned order is a forged letter and it did not bear her signatures. THEre is nothing on record of the file of complaint case that any such plea had been raised and any effort was made for comparison of the disputed signatures on the letter with the specimen signatures of the complainant by any handwriting expert. We, therefore, find no plausible reason to accept the contention of the appellant in this regard. THE District Forum, in our considered opinion, has taken into consideration all the relevant material and even enabled the complainant to have an expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect alleged by her in the scooter but she did not avail of the said opportunity. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. THE parties are left to bear their costs of appeal. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.