L.M.L. Limited vs PARVEEN KUMAR MITTAL

THIS appeal has been directed by the respondents against order dated 28.10.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which complaint was accepted and the appellants were directed to return the motorcycle in question in good working condition after repair, without claiming repair charges and further to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides costs of litigation of Rs. 2,500.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent (complainant) Sh. Parveen Kumar Mittal is a businessman residing at House No. 3110, Sector-47-D, Chandigarh. He purchased the motorcycle model LML Freedom DX from Chandigarh Auto Care-appellant No. 2 on 13.10.2003 for a sum of Rs. 41,400 vide bill, whose photocopy is Annexure C-1. The services of the said motorcycle were done within time as per schedule in the rider''s manual. The sixth service was done on 27.9.2004. Till then the motor bike was doing well. Copy of the service slip of 6th free service done by appellant No. 2 is Annexure C-2. It was next averred that the bike developed defect on 1.10.2004 as its engine ceased and as such it was given to appellant No. 2 for repair on 1.10.2004 vide acknowledgement Annexure C-3. The bike was under warranty at that time. When he went to take the bike after 3-4 days, then he was told by the employees of appellant No. 2 that he could take the bike back after paying a sum of Rs. 6,000 as repair charges but he told them that since, bike was under warranty, so, he was not liable to pay any amount, but appellant No. 2 refused to honour the warranty, as such he could not take the bike.

It was further averred that he was doing the business of trading of moulded furniture and for his business he had to go for outdoor activities for meeting the clients to take order and marketing etc. and due to non-availability of the motor bike, he suffered business loss besides mental agony and harassment.

WITH these allegations, he prayed that the appellants be directed to return the motor bike in good working condition and to pay an amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs for business losses suffered by him and further Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and harassment. Appellants contested the complaint and denied the allegations of the respondent. They further stated that the respondent did not adhere to the instructions as provided in the Rider''s Manual and he was very irregular in getting the services of the motorcycle done, as a result, the engine developed defects which were got repaired at the initial stage. The motorcycle was properly attended to whenever it was brought to them but since, the respondent had breached the terms and conditions of the warranty, so, he was not entitled to benefit of warranty and was liable to make payment in respect of the repairs carried in the vehicle in question. They further stated that since the respondent was very irregular and careless with regard to the services of vehicle, so, it had adverse affect on the engine. At the time of 5th service on 19.7.2004, the engine oil was short and there was noise in the engine which was due to lapse on the part of respondent and the bike had developed complications in the engine.

THEY next stated that when 6th service was not got done within stipulated period, a major problem in the engine had developed which was disclosed to the respondent on 27.9.2004 when the engine was opened and the respondent was told that he had to bear expenses for repair and parts of the vehicle which were to be replaced but the respondent took away the vehicle in dismantled condition on the plea that he would get it repaired from the market. Thereafter, on 1.10.2004, he brought the vehicle in dismantled condition and asked appellant No. 2 to repair the same. THEY further stated that the bike was duly repaired but respondent did not take delivery of the same and as such there was no deficiency on their part. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 28.10.2005 accepted the complaint with costs as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, respondents (in the complaint) have filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Vaneesh Khanna, Counsel for respondent Mr. Anil Chopra and carefully gone through the file. The respondent had got the second service of the motorcycle done when it had covered 2,959 kms., although second service was required to be done between 2000-2500 kms. He got the third service done when the motorcycle had already run 5,182 kms. whereas it was required to be serviced between 3500-4000 kms. The fourth service was got done when the motorcycle had already run 6,140 kms., although it was required to be done at 5500-6000 kms. The motorcycle was brought for the 5th service when it had already run 8,839 kms. and the speedometer was not working whereas it should have been done between 7500-8000 kms. The motorcycle was further brought to the workshop of the appellant No. 2 for 6th service when it had already run 11,552 kms., although the said service was required to be done in between 9500-10000 kms. These facts show that the respondent was very irregular and careless with regard to the service of vehicle in question to be done. A perusal of the job card Annexure R-7 dated 19.7.2004 shows that the motorcycle was brought by the respondent in the Chandigarh Auto Care Workshop at 11.00 a.m. for 5th service. At that time, the speedometer was not working. The engine oil was short. The job card Annexure R-8 further shows that it was brought for 6th service on 27.9.2004 when it had already run 11,552 kms. and at that time it required oil change , crank shaft with piston required to be changed, head with crank shaft was also required to be changed. However, respondent took delivery in dismantled condition as is clear from the noting inserted on the job card. Annexure R-9 job card further shows that at that time the motorcycle had run 11,553 kms. and it was brought in its dismantled condition. It was stated that the engine had ceased. The said motorcycle was brought on 1.10.2004 while it was taken away in dismantled condition on 27.9.2004. For about 3-4 days, the motorcycle in its dismantled condition remained in custody of the respondent. It is not stated as to what he had done with the motorcycle during that period ; whether he had tried to get it repaired from some other unauthorized mechanic or some other workshop. Since, it was taken in dismantled condition and was brought in dismantled condition after 3-4 days and it had run about one kilometre, so, it appears to have been reassembled after taking delivery in dismantled condition on 27.9.2004 but again was dismantled. Therefore, it can be presumed that some untrained hands had tried to rectify the defects in the motorcycle and in that process the engine had ceased.

As already stated above, the respondent had been irregular in bringing the motorcycle to the workshop for free services. According to appellants, due to irregular services i.e. not getting services done within time, a major problem had developed in the engine. The warranty which was given to the respondent along with the motorcycle was governed by certain terms and conditions. Condition No. 3 of terms and conditions of the said warranty states that the warranty automatically becomes null and void if- (a) The motorcycle is used in any competition, race or for setting of records of any kind. (b) The motorcycle in which repairs or modifications have been carried out by person or persons other than our authorized service station. (c) Any motorcycle on which the free coupon services and subsequent paid services as detailed in this manual have not been carried out. (d) Parts of the motorcycle are damaged due to improper use, neglect, accident or alteration etc. carried out by the customer.

THUS, according to Sub-clause ( c) of terms and conditions of Clause-3 if the free services and subsequent paid services have not been got done as detailed in the manual, then warranty automatically becomes null and void. In the present case, respondent had come for 6th free service when vehicle had already run 11,552 kms. against the required 9500-10000 kms. and similarly 5th service was got done when the speedometer was at 8839 kms. when it was required to be done at 7500-8000 kms. At that time speedometer was not working, so, the meter reading could be more. THUS, certainly due to irregular services which resulted in defect in the engine, the warranty has become void. The respondent has not led any evidence to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the motorcycle which led to ceasing of the engine. Since, the motorcycle was not used as per warranty terms and conditions, so, the appellants were not required to do free service or to replace the damaged parts. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of appellants. Therefore, in view of the detailed reasons given above, the appeal is accepted and the order of District Consumer Forum dated 28.10.2005 is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.