ORDER (D.M.YADAV, MEMBER)
1
The present complaint is being disposed off by me in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Motorcycle Hero (HF Deluxe) bearing Chassis No.MBLHAW026KGB03358, Engine No.HA11ENKGB03303 bearing Regd. No. HR-35R-2659 from the opposite party No.2, which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. After some time of its purchase, the spark plug of the motorcycle became defective, upon which the motorcycle was brought to the authorized service station of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.2 and after removing the defect, it was returned back to the complainant but again after 5-7 days, the spark plug again became defective. The vehicle was again brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2 and this time the spark plug was changed and motorcycle was returned back to the complainant. The spark plug again became defective and vehicle was again brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2 and complainant requested to remove the defect but the defect remained as it was. The above said vehicle became defective only due to the manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to remove the defect or to replace the motorcycle but of no use. The
2
complainant lastly issued a registered legal notice dated 31.12.2021 upon the opposite parties but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for replacement of new motorcycle besides compensation and cost of litigation.
3 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. In response to the notices, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate written statement
In the written statement, opposite party No.1-manufacturing company has stated that as per vehicle history, the complainant visited the authorized dealer on 14.06.2022 for service and no such alleged defects were reported or found during service. Furthermore, as per the complainant, he again visited the opposite party No.2 on 18.07.2022 and after removing the reported problem gave the complainant satisfactory note on 30.07.2022 by stating "fault has been removed and I am satisfied" The alleged problems are not of nature which amounts to any manufacturing defect in a vehicle. Therefore, demanding replacement of vehicle or cost of used vehicle is not legally tenable when the complainant is using the vehicle till now. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could not have run 61000 kms. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any
3
manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The reports of Rakesh Kumar, Automobile Engineering Diploma Holder and Krishan Lal, Mechanic (having no diploma or degree in Automobile Engineering) are not the conclusive proof of manufacturing defects because both these witnesses are interested persons as they were engaged by the complainant without the consent of the opposite parties and without any orders of this Commission. Thus, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1.
In the written statement filed by opposite party No.2- it has been alleged that spark plug does not fall within the meaning of manufacturing defect. As and when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2, the defect was rectified by changing the spark plug. If still there is any defect in the motorcycle, the opposite party No.2 is ready to rectify the same as per warranty conditions. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.2.
4 In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence the affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopies of :- Form No.22 as Annexure C-1, Sale Certificate Annexure
4
C-2, Tax Invoice as Annexure C-3, insurance policies as Annexure C-4 to C-6, Tax Invoice as Annexure C-7, another insurance policy as Annexure C-8, registration certificate as Annexure C-9, original postal receipt as Annexure C-10 & C-11, legal notice as Annexure C-12, Aadhaar Card of complainant as Annexure C-13, bills/invoices as Annexure C-14 to C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered in evidence the affidavit of Shri Surajit Chatterjee as Annexure RW1/A, , terms and conditions of warranty as Annexure A, vehicle history as Annexure B, job card as Annexure C and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has made a statement that the written statement filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 may also be read in evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 without tendering any evidence vide statement recorded on 22.04.2024.
6 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the case file.
7 In the present case, the complainant has totally failed to show and prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in
5
question and without any evidence or expert report, it cannot be said that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. As and when the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party No.2 for plug issue, the same was duly attended by the opposite party No.2. There is also satisfaction note on behalf of the complainant which has been placed on record by the opposite parties as Annexure C. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could not have run 61000 Kms as per version of the opposite party and this version of the opposite party has never been rebutted by the complainant. Hence, I find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced (D.M.Yadav)
Dated: 29.04.2026 Member,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,
Narnaul
6