Haryana

StateCommission

A/449/2015

SANJEEV BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.K.MOTORS CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN LUTHRA

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      449 of 2015

Date of Institution:      14.05.2015

Date of Decision :       29.09.2016

 

Sanjeev Bansal s/o Sh. Ramrattan Bansal, Resident of House No.423, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal. 

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      A.K. Motor Company through its Proprietor/Partner, Khurania Complex, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2.      Bajaj Auto Limited, B-60/61, Narain Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110028 through its Area Manager/Manager services.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for respondents.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated February 20^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.106 of 2013.

2.                Sanjeev Bansal-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that   he approached A.K. Motor Company-Opposite Party No.1, on 21^st June, 2012 for purchasing a new motor cycle. As per scheme of the opposite party No.1, the complainant brought his old motor cycle make Star City Model 2010 to the showroom of the opposite party No.1, the market value of which was assessed at Rs.19,700/-. He purchased a new motor cycle make Boxer 150 on the same day i.e. 21^st June, 2012 vide invoice No.631 (Exhibit-CB).

3.                The grievance of the complainant was that there were manufacturing defects in the motor cycle. In the month of January, 2013, the engine of the motor cycle stopped working. He approached the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence the complainant filed complaint.

4.                The opposite parties-respondents in their written version stated that the complainant failed to meet the requirements of warranty policy. He did not avail 1^st service, 2^nd service or 3^rd service and the motor cycle was over run. There was no record of 4^th service onwards. Thus, due to the continuous lapse in services, the vehicle was out of warranty. Since, there was breach of warranty conditions, the vehicle goes out of warranty. More so, no expert evidence has been produced to prove any manufacturing defect in the motor cycle. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the record on the file, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair the motor cycle and replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that since there was manufacturing defect in the motor cycle, so the opposite parties ought to have been directed to replace the motor cycle with new one or to refund the price thereof. It was further contended that the motor cycle was within warranty. However, despite opposite parties’ pleading that cylinder kit was replaced free of cost, the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1630/- for the same.

7.                Undisputedly, the motor cycle was within warranty. It was purchased on 21^st June, 2012. Defect in the motor cycle was reported in January, 2013. The opposite parties in paragraph No.10 of the written version, pleaded that some defects arose on account of adulterated fuel for which a sum of Rs.3350/- was charged which included Rs.570/- as regular service charges; Rs.1050/- towards outside guard job (Kharad etc) and Rs.1630/- for spares effected by adulterated fuel. The cylinder kit was replaced free of cost. However, a perusal of the bill Exhibit-CC, shows that a sum of Rs.1630/- was charged for cylinder kit.

8.                Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the opposite parties agreed to refund Rs.1630/- charged towards cylinder kit. It is ordered accordingly. The respondents-opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.1630/- to the appellant-complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of charging till its realisation.

9.                The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

 

Announced: 29.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL