Haryana

Sonipat

310/2014

MANOJ S/O DHARAMPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE MANAGER/IN CHARGE SODHI AUTO PVT. LTD.,2. THE MANAGER SUZUKI MOTOR CYCLE INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT BALYAN

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.310 of 2014.

                                Instituted on:17.11.2014.

                                Date of order:07.08.2015

 

Manoj son of Dharam Pal resident of H.No.244-A/19, Preet Vihar, old DC road, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.The Manager/Incharge, Sodhi Auto Pvt. Ltd., near Civil Hospital, Delhi road Sonepat.

2.The Manager/Incharge Suzuki Motor Cycle India Ltd., village Kherki, Dhaula, Badhshahpur, NH8, link road, Gurgaon.

                                            ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Shri Amit Balyan Adv. for complainant.

           Shri PK Gupta Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

     SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he purchased scooty no.HR10U/9889 from respondent no.1 on 19.10.2012.  The complainant got repaired the engine of the said vehicle from the authorized centre and total amount of Rs.1340/- were paid by the complainant.   On 18.1.2014 the said vehicle stopped working and the same was taken to the service centre of the respondents where the mechanic told the complainant to get the engine repaired again.  On 10.9.2014 the said vehicle again stopped working and was left at respondents’ service centre for repair. When the complainant visited the respondents and requested to repair the vehicle, they avoided to repair the same and this act and conduct of the respondents have caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        The respondents in their written statement has submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum.  Two of the services were lapsed i.e. 3^rd and 8^th service.  While receiving the vehicle and subsequent check, it was revealed that the vehicle has low pressure problem.  The vehicle was repaired/engine overhauled and the complainant was informed on 16^th and 18^th Sep, 2014 to collect his scooter.  The complainant approached but he refused to pay Rs.801/- to the complainants.   The complainant did not agree to the guidelines mentioned in the owner manual and left the vehicle with the respondent no.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of  ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum.  Two of the services were lapsed i.e. 3^rd and 8^th service.  While receiving the vehicle and subsequent check, it was revealed that the vehicle has low pressure problem.  The vehicle was repaired/engine overhauled and the complainant was informed on 16^th and 18^th Sep, 2014 to collect his scooter.  The complainant approached but he refused to pay Rs.801/- to the complainants.   The complainant did not agree to the guidelines mentioned in the owner manual and left the vehicle with the respondent no.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents because the complainant regularly getting the service of the vehicle, but despite this, the fault of the scooter was not rectified by the respondents.  There is no technical report or any other expert report available on the case file, so no order regarding replacement of the engine or the vehicle can be passed.  However, since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, we hereby direct the respondents to remove the fault of the vehicle and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services and Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to pay Rs.798/- to the respondents for getting back his vehicle from the respondents.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:07.08.2015