First Appeal No.254 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:-

India Yamaha Motors Private Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at First Floor, The Great Eastern Center, 70, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (Through Mr. Nikhil Gaur).

...Appellant

Versus

1. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Chhote Lal, R/o Plot No. 06, Street No. 02, Jiwan Nagar-02, Gaunchhi, Near Hero Bike Showroom, Faridabad, Haryana.

2. Green Automobile Private Limited, (Entity Closed) 20-21A Railway Road, Fruit Garden, Faridabad, Haryana.

3. Northern Motors, A-5, Neelam Bata Road, Nehru Ground Faridabad, Haryana.

…..Respondents

CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

Present:- Ms. Ritika Garg, proxy counsel for Mr. T.S. Khaira, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sunil Kumar-respondent No.1 in person.

Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, counsel for respondent No.2.

Respondent No. 3 already ex-parte.

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1. In present appeal No.254 of 2021; legality of order dated 03.08.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.556 of 2019 has been assailed; vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Yamaha Saluto RX Bike on 09.04.2019 from OP No.2 amounting to Rs.52,680/-. At the time of purchasing of said vehicle, OP No.2 had given manufacturing warrantee to complainant. As per plea, various manufacturing defects started occurring within 30 days of purchase of said vehicle i.e. Shocker Leakage, Powder coating is peeled off from various critical safety parts, Handle got rusted in 2nd month of vehicle purchase, Stainless steel parts were also getting rusted, From 22.10.2019 self-start stopped working, Bike stops anywhere on the way & kick start also do not work many times and Dust was getting accumulated in the odometer. Complainant reported the defects to OP No.2 & OP No.1, but no solution provided by them. As per plea, all above defects clearly show manufacturing defect. Complainant had sent several emails to OPs for the resolution of problem but each time they advised to visit dealership. When complainant visited dealership, no resolution was provided and OP No.2 & 3 only said that they will talk to OP No.1 and revert back. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency of their service.

3. Upon notice, OP No.1 raised its contest and submitted that the complaint filed by complainant pertains to catching of rust on parts of motorcycle and the same cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. The motorcycle may catch rust due to various reasons including parking of vehicle in open area in any season. With regard to other defects alleged in the complaint, it was complainant himself, who did not approach OPs for inspection and repair of motorcycle despite numerous emails and requests of OP No.1. OP No. 1 could not examine the alleged defects in the motorcycle and there is no deficiency on part of it. Complainant did not approach OP No. 1 for inspection and repair of said motorcycle despite repeated requests which established that motorcycle did not suffer from any defect. In case, complainant would have approached for inspection and repair of motorcycle, OP No. 1 would have examined the motorcycle with regard to authenticity of the allegations and in case any defects were found in the motorcycle, the same would have been repaired or relevant part would have been replaced under warranty.

4. On the statement of complainant OP No.2 was given up from the array of opposite parties by learned District Commission vide order dated 04.02.2020.

5. OP No.3 filed its separate defense and submitted that the alleged defects of vehicle were not mentioned in the job card duly filled, neither intimated by complainant, qua his vehicle, at the time of giving delivery for the purpose of repairing of his vehicle.

6. Parties led their respective evidence. On analyzing the same; le