[Resolved]  Suzuki India — 125CC ZEUS BIKE

My dear brother i faced same problem here in bangalore and filed the case in consumer court bangalore and won the case.Please see the judgement passed by honourable court (http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcrep/judgement/18613587.2009.htm)


You can call on my mobile : [protected]


judgements

Bangalore Urban Principal Forum, Bangalore

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/587


Srinivas. T.
...Appellant(s)

Vs.


Mr. Harish Wadwa,

Mr. Vinod Natarajan Suzuki & Mr. Vipul. Goyal (Suzuki)
...Respondent(s)


BEFORE:



Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):



OppositeParty/Respondent(s):



OppositeParty/Respondent(s):



OppositeParty/Respondent(s):





ORDER



1. This Complaint was filed on 12.03.2009 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint purchased Zeus 125 CC Motor Cycle on 5.1.2009 for his personal use. The 1st Opposite Party is a Manufacturer and the 2nd Opposite Party is the Authorized Dealer of that motor cycle. Since the date of purchase of the vehicle, it was defective and it was dragging towards left side thereby causing severe pain in the left shoulder and left collar bone. The side mirror of the vehicle was like concave mirror. He approached the 2nd Opposite Party on 10.1.2009 and reported the Complaints about it. The 2nd Opposite Party attended to the problem and replaced the mirror and adjusted the clamps etc., and assured that the problem is rectified. Still the condition of the vehicle never improved and again on 25.1.2009, he took the vehicle to the 2nd Opposite Party and the Service Executive attended the problem and he changed the handle bar. Inspite of it, the problem became perennial problem. There was handle bar problem and the vehicle was dragging to the left side due to such problem, it was causing severe pain to his left shoulder and collar bone and he was required to take medical treatment. Hence, he contacted the Manufacturer i.e., the 1st Opposite Party highlighting the recurring problem in the said vehicle, but it was not solved. The left side handle bar was not equal to the right side and there was difference in the height and the left side handle was inside and the right side handle was projected outside. After long debate, they replaced the handle bar but still the pain was there. Then he contacted Mr. Vinod Natarajan and enquired with some of the customers and they told him that there is a cross in the vehicle which is causing the pain. After that Mr. Vinod told to Mr. Harish to replace the “Legs/Upper plate/T Stem/Handle Bar.” Hence, the above parts were replaced and then his pain reduced, but still he is feeling pain in left shoulder and he is feeling uneasy to drive. On 6.3.2009, one Vinod Natarajan came from Gurgaon to inspect the vehicle and they promised 100% satisfaction. He replaced front and rear wheel and to some extent, the pain went off, but still thee is cross in the handle bar which makes him uneasy while driving. Hence, he requested the Opposite Parties to replace the defective vehicle by giving a new vehicle in good condition and they have refused that there is manufacturing defect in that vehicle and because of it, it could not be properly repaired. Hence, he prays for replacing the defective vehicle or to pay the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.53, 674/- and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2, 000/- towards treatment and conveyance charges and Rs.2, 500/- towards medical expenses, hence, totally he claims Rs.1, 01, 174/-.

2. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the motor cycle is manufactured as per standard specifications and norms setout by the Company and the vehicle was subjected to thorough mandatory pre delivery inspection and only after finding that the vehicle was 100% perfect, it was delivered to the Complainant. Hence, there was no manufacturing defect as alleged. Even the other motor cycles of the same Company are fitted with similar fittings of mirrors and bars and there is no complaint about them. The Opposite Party made the replacement of the mirrors, handle bar and tyres only to satisfy the customer i.e., the Complainant. The Complainant instead of being reasonable to understand the technical aspects, created ugly scene in the showroom and abused the employees of the 1st Opposite Party. Hence, only to avoid such differences, they went on repairing and replacing the parts even though it was not necessary. Hence, absolutely there is no reason to replace the entire vehicle or return the value of the vehicle. The contention of the Complainant is only imaginary and made with malafide intention to get a brand new vehicle. hence, the Petition may be dismissed.

3. The question that arises for consideration is,

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

(i) Affirmative
(ii) As per the final Order.

REASONS

5. POINT NO.1: In our opinion, the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency of service for the following reasons. There is no dispute about the fact that since the beginning of purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant was complaining about the said defects and the Opposite Party repaired or replaced the defective article and inspite of it, the defect was not completely removed. Hence, patently there ought to be a defect in the manufacturing of the vehicle. A Commissioner has been appointed for inspecting the vehicle and giving the report about the defects. The Senior Inspector of the RTO Office has filed his Report and he has stated that the handle bar is not at the same height from the ground level on its either side and there is difference of 2.3 cms in the measurement and normally this measurement should be equal. Similarly, the handle bar has been measured from the rearmost portion of the body of the vehicle and at the left tip, it is 3 cms more than the right tip. It is observed that normally this measurement should be equal. However, he has tested the vehicle and found that at the time of movement, there is no imbalance. He is of the opinion that causing riding uneasiness is because of the measurement differences as stated above. In our opinion, the reasons given by the Commissioner is well founded. The only objection of the Opposite Party to this Report is that it is not done by the RTO who is an expert in it and it is done by his subordinate. In our opinion, having regard to the nature of inspection made, it makes no difference whether it is done by the RTO or by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. By just measuring the handle bar and its height at different points from the ground and from the rear portion of the body, it was found that there is difference in its measurement. For finding out such difference, it makes less difference when it was inspected by the RTO or by Senior Inspector. Hence, this objection is not tenable. In our opinion, when the handle bar is not o[censored]niform height from the ground and when it is not at uniform distance from the rear portion, it ought to cause inconvenience in driving. That defect could not be solved even after replacing the handle bar. This shows that there is some defect in the chassi of that vehicle and because of it, it may not be easily repaired. As the vehicle has been successfully repaired and as it is still having such problem, it can be safely concluded that it is due to some mechanical defect. Hence, the Opposite Party is responsible for the same. Hence, we hold that the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service. Accordingly, this point is answered.

6. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on Point No.1, the Complainant is entitled for refund of the value of the vehicle i.e., Rs.53, 674/-. It is not proper to award interest on this amount as the Complainant had the benefit o[censored]sing the vehicle until now. In our opinion, it is not a fit case to award compensation on the ground of mental agony because the mechanical defect in the vehicle is not intentional and it may be that without the knowledge of the Opposite Party such defect might have occasioned. Hence we feel, that justice will be made if the cost of the vehicle is ordered to be returned to the Complainant with cost of this litigation at Rs.3, 000/-. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R

This Complaint is allowed. It is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to take back the said vehicle from the Complainant and refund the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.53, 674/- (Rupees fifty-three thousand six hundred and seventy-four only) to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3, 000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the Complainant by way of cost of this litigation. The Opposite Party is granted 30 days time from this date to comply this Order.


This Order is pronounced on this the 24th day of November 2009.




H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Dr. SUBHASHINI T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT