[bikerzindia]

Originally Posted by v12

Sorry to hear you go through all of this Prado. Isn't there some kind of penalty if a party fails to attend the hearing?

Sadly the penalty is always on the person who goes to seek justice in India. Notices have to be sent 3 times, then a paper publication has to be put up and even then if the other party doesn't show up then an Ex Parte Judgement is passed.

[bikerzindia]

30 Jan 18 again Bajaj Auto did not show up. Next date on 20 Feb 18.

[bikerzindia]

20 Jan 2018 again Bajaj Auto did not turn up in spite of the court notices reaching them.

The next hearing is posted for 20 March 2018 with the final notice dispatched to Bajaj Auto & KTM India.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Whats the progress on the case Prado? Seems to be under 'Objection' status with the next hearing in June.

Hope all the respondents have finally appeared in court.

[bikerzindia]

Apologies for not updating as there was absolutely no progress.
As of now there are 4 parties defending the case out of which 3 have shown up ie
1. Kawasaki India Motors
2. Popular Motor Corporation (Dealer)
3. KTM India and
4. Bajaj Auto who has not yet shown up.
Three notices have already been served on Bajaj Auto but still they have not bothered to send a representation.

KTM India also showed up only after the third notice was served. Next hearing is on 8 June 18. Not expecting much action on that day however Bajaj Auto might show up.

Meanwhile I picked up an Impulse and managed to strike out one more ride destination of my bucket list. Leh Ladhak including Khardung La, Nubra Valley, Chang La and Pangong Tso. A well contented ride after a year of abstinence from rides.

Let's hope for the best.

[VellVector]

Originally Posted by bikerzindia

Next hearing is on 8 June 18.

Hey Pradosh, Any movement at all on your case?

[ACM]

Originally Posted by bikerzindia

Apologies for not updating as there was absolutely no progress.
As of now there are 4 parties defending the case out of which 3 have shown up ie
1. Kawasaki India Motors
2. Popular Motor Corporation (Dealer)
3. KTM India and
4. Bajaj Auto who has not yet shown up.
Three notices have already been served on Bajaj Auto but still they have not bothered to send a representation.

KTM India also showed up only after the third notice was served. Next hearing is on 8 June 18. Not expecting much action on that day however Bajaj Auto might show up.

Just a thought.
It would appear that your case is getting delayed further due to addition of dealer and three parent companies to the case. Maybe if you had just filled the case against Kawasaki the results would have been faster, though there is a risk of them shifting the blame to a party not named in the case?

[bikerzindia]

Originally Posted by ACM

Just a thought.
It would appear that your case is getting delayed further due to addition of dealer and three parent companies to the case. Maybe if you had just filled the case against Kawasaki the results would have been faster, though there is a risk of them shifting the blame to a party not named in the case?

Yes that is precisely what happens when multiple parties are involved, every party tries and shrugs off the blame and pins responsibility on other party. If that party is not then one of the defending parties then the case falls flat and the process has to begin again from scratch which is very time consuming which discourages customers from filing cases.

I was however clear in my thought that it would take me atleast 3 years at the initial level.As of today we have just crossed just 1 year. There has been very less progress in the case but the good news is that all parties have come on board to defend themselves or atleast say that they are in noway connected as defending parties and that the case has no merits and has to be disposed off.

Kawasaki however was the first to come on board to respond. The dealer Popular Motor Corporation came in later, then post 3 notices KTM India came in, then 3 notices later finally Bajaj Auto showed up all the 3 giving same defense through the same advocate. (I would like to thank Bajaj Auto for saving a few bucks of mine which I would have to spend on paper publication inviting them to come and defend themselves) I knew this from day one that it would be a long drawn fight and it would all depend on who would blink first. The next date is posted for 22nd October 2018. Let us wait and watch if any significant movement happens.

[bikerzindia]

After about 13 months today, we had first set of arguments. The arguments were with respect to an interim application (IA) moved by us to make Bajaj Auto Ltd. a party in the complaint.

As usual, the advocate representing Popular Motors, KTM India & Bajaj Auto Ltd. all the three being represented by single advocate chose not to be present (delaying tactics in Indian Judiciary). The firm representing IKM from Delhi, thankfully sent their representative.

We made a submission that as we did not have any record or document which connected IKM with Bajaj Auto Ltd. hence initially, Bajaj Auto Ltd. was not made a party. But later when IKM in their reply to the court brought on record that the agreement was between IKM & Bajaj Auto Ltd. and not with KTM India, that is when we got to know on record that Bajaj Auto Ltd. was to be made a necessary party and hence the IA was moved. And that if the IA was not allowed then it would not be possible for parties to be held accountable and justice to be delivered.

Argument of the IKM Advocate was that we knew from the beginning that Bajaj Auto Ltd. had to be made a party but we chose not to make them party (some weird logic) & are now moving an IA to make them a party and since we did not make Bajaj Auto Ltd. a party in our initial plaint, the plaint should be discarded. If needed a fresh complaint to be filed with all necessary parties once again (so that that can delay the complaint by atleast 6 more months or so) She also said that IKM had repaired the bike and it was free from all faults and that inspite of the same being communicated to me, I chose not to collect it and instead opted to file this case.

The next hearing is posted for 7 November 2018 for a decision on if the IA should be allowed or not.

[svsantosh]

I may be a bit late to this thread, but since matter is in court already, Bikerz India please ensure you get the following readings or at least raise this question in the court of law, this will ensure you win it hands down.

1) Get the input shaft current imbalance readings (engine needs to be pulled apart)
2) Get them to display the Original Component (shaft) drawings, original inspection report during assembly and current dimensional report.
3) Produce Run out and Face out report of input shaft extension/overhang (from face to where it goes into the casing)

I am 100% sure either the shaft is bent or out of imbalance, the gaps and tolerances between these plates are in order of 100-200 microns, and the fact that one friction plate is repeatedly wearing our prematurely indicates the shaft is bent slightly or its running in a elliptical axis or minor vibrations caused by either wear out of bearing seating area on shaft OD or bearing locking area on Casing ID/bore.

Its a simple fix, but nincompoops inside a A.S.S are not given access to such high precision instruments or gauges or let alone Drawings from Japan Works!

PM me if you need a personal tour of what are the possible issues (RCA/CAPA) in a rotating/turning machinery. I will glad to assist you win this case.

[bikerzindia]

Originally Posted by svsantosh

PM me if you need a personal tour of what are the possible issues (RCA/CAPA) in a rotating/turning machinery. I will glad to assist you win this case.

Thanks @svsantosh for your time. So Yesterday I met Santosh and he gave me some deeper insights into the issue.

So as per what Santosh, feels and I would like others also technical experts to make a point on this, he feels that the real issue is not in the clutch assembly but somewhere deeper in the engine components (Please correct me if I got it right since I am not a technically sound person) He feels that if the issue lay in the clutch assembly, then why was there a need of changing engine cylinder and the intake & exhaust valves as per below attached file.



With his deep knowledge of technicalities and his gut feeling, he pointed out that the crux of the issue lies deep within the engine which is being shown again and again in the form of abnormal clutch wear out.

Please correct me if I have got you right Santosh and if you would like to add more details.

[svsantosh]

Pradosh, what I observed from our meeting is the engine was starved of oil at some subassy/ section, either leak thru excess valve seat clearances or excess ring to bore gap, or water jacket puncture.

Water jacket puncture can be ruled out for now. If excess oil had been lost via valve seats or rings then a temporary build up of temperature could have caused the sudden seizure of the piston(s) and caused the wheel to lock abruptly and throw you off the bike.

Once that happened, then anything inside the engine could have been damaged or set on the path to future damage. Hence the cylinder was replaced even when you just said clutch was tight along with head and valves.

I see no reason for "Goodwill" and repeated replacement of major engine components while it actually needs a complete engine swap.

From mobile, e&o.e...

[Red Liner]

You have to push the court to appoint an independent authority who will disseminate the bike and give an authorized report to the court on its failure. This has to be what you push for so that it strengthens your case for a full replacement. Luckily, you have left your bike all these months at the ASC hence nobody can point fingers at you about messing with evidence.

Do talk to your lawyer and explore this angle seriously. Good luck.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Red Liner

This has to be what you push for so that it strengthens your case for a full replacement.

Replacement also doesn't make sense anymore. Versys was 'the' bike to own back then, its ageing now. With all these sour experiences for Prado, a new Versys will hardly bring any joy.

Better to only fight for the full refund, and move on to some other brand.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Replacement also doesn't make sense anymore. Versys was 'the' bike to own back then, its ageing now. With all these sour experiences for Prado, a new Versys will hardly bring any joy.

Better to only fight for the full refund, and move on to some other brand.

Guess its up to the OP to decide, and then the court to decide what is appropriate. End of the day we can ask for anything we want, but the Court is the final authority after taking everyone's arguments into consideration.

Hope the sitting Judge is a motorcycle enthusiast