Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Subhasis Roy
For OP/OPs : Abronil Biswas
Date of filing of the case :07.02.2017
Date of Disposal of the case :12.05.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.12.05.2023
Complainant above named filed the present case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to replace the defective Motor Byke by providing new one or direct to return back the entire amount of Rs.1,48,000/- and compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-.
He alleged that he purchased one Royal Enfield Bullet 350 ES-Electra Silver Colour Motor Byke Model Code No.800628 by paying ex-showroom price amounting to Rs.1,24,669/- to the OP NO.1. He also paid extra amount for Registration, Insurance and Tax of the aforesaid Motor Byke. Sale Invoice was given to the complaint on 05.08.2016. Said Motor Bike was duly registered in the name of the complainant vide no.WB52A D2107 having it’s Chassis No.ME3U3S5COGG109408 and Engine NO. U3s5COGG109408 Insurance was paid in the name of complainant soon after purchase of the aforesaid Motor Byke. Complainant went for a long trip and he observed there was defect of right hand pulling balance problem as such it caused severe pain in his right arm and immediately on returning home on 22.08.2016, he informed the matter to OP NO.1. On receiving the model from complainant, OP NO.1 advised the complainant to hand over the Motor Byke at their service centre for curing of the defect and accordingly complainant handed over the said vehicle at their service centre on 01.09.2016. Problem was not solved. Complainant again informed the matter and aforesaid Motor Byke was again handed over to the OP No.1 for necessary work. It was returned on 19.10.2016 complainant found that problem was still remaining such nothing was done by the OP No.1. On 15.11.2016 complainant informed the matter to OPs through mail and requested them take necessary steps. But till now they did not give any reply. Warranty period of the said Motor Byke was still in forced. OP NO.1 and 2 sold the defective Motor Byke by adopting unfair trade practice. Hence this case.
OP NO.1 contests the case by filing a W/V and denied the entire allegations. He further stated that on 05.08.2016 complainant purchased the aforesaid Motor Byke on payment of Rs.1,40,400/-. On 22.08.2016 complainant informed the problem of the said Motor Byke and he handed over the said Motor Byke on 01.09.2016 repairing work was done by replacing a motor parts with a new one along with a new chassis as free of costs. Complainant took delivery of the said motorcycle after full satisfaction of service. Complainant again visited the workshop on 07.11.2016 for
(3)
servicing but on that time he never indicated that there is a right hand pulling problem. On 20.09.2016, 07.11.2016 and 15.02.2017 aforesaid byke was thoroughly checked and no defect was found necessary. Parts were replaced. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP No.2 contests the case by filing a separate W/V and denied the entire allegations of the complaint. They stated that complainant reported defect of the byke on 20.09.2016. On 20.09.2016 complainant reported balancing problem in the byke which was thoroughly inspected and subsequently serviced. Complainant again complaint about the byke on 27.09.2016. On that time frame of the byke worth of Rs.11,000/- was replaced. They gave proper service of the byke. There is no deficiency on their part they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of record we find that both parties did not file any evidence. Complainant produced copy of some documents. He did not file any original documents. OP No.1 produced Xerox copies of some documents with his W/V.
Decision with Reasons
Complainant alleged that he purchased one byke from OP No. 1 who is the authorised representative of OP No.2.
OP NO.1 & 2 admitted the said fact in their W/V. So, it is clear before us that complainant purchased the aforesaid Motor Byke from the OP No.1. Papers of the said Motor Byke was subsequently prepared in the name of complaint as per petition of complaint. But curious enough that complainant did not file any original documents relating to the said Motor Byke.
OP NO.1 & 2 filed certain documents at the time of filing W/V.
It is the allegation of the complainant that after purchase of the aforesaid byke he found certain problems in the said byke and requested the OP No.1 to repair the same. OP NO.1 took the said Motor Byke for servicing on different occasions and thereafter returned the same to the complainant but problem of the byke was not cured. Perused the massage correspondence OP NO.1 produced the copy of job card of the said byke with his W/V. On perusal of job card dated 20.09.2016, we find that said byke was repaired from the side of OP NO.1 & 2 and complainant put the signature over the said document.
On perusal of job card dated 07.11.2016 we find that OP NO.1 & 2 repaired the aforesaid Motor Byke and said document contains the signature of complainant and said job was done for different problems. So it is clear before us that right hand pulling complaints problem which was solved on 20.09.2019 was not found on 07.11.2016. On perusal of job card dated
(4)
15.02.2017, we find that aforesaid Motor Byke was serviced but on that time complainant did not report defect of right hand pulling balance problem. So, it is clear before us that said problem was solved on earlier servicing.
In the present case complainant did not produce any original documents in support of his contention even he did not arrange for examination of the aforesaid Motor Byke by any expert institution relating to defect of the product. He did not produce paper of the said Motor Byke including warranty card, the reason best known to him. On the other hand from the documents of OP NO.1 & 2, we find that OP NO.1 & 2 repaired the aforesaid Motor Byke on 3 occasions and complainant was satisfied with the servicing. He did not raise any objection about continuation of earlier problem or any problem over the job card at the time of those servicing.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firmed view that complainant has failed to established his grievance by sufficient materials and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties but no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
