1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Splendor Pro Motorcycle vide Invoice No.10220-02-SINV-0915-296 dt.08.09.2015 for Rs.50, 751/- from OP.1 and at the time of purchase the OP.2 issued one set of Key of the vehicle with a promise to issue another key within a short period.  On complaint, the OP.1 remained silent after a brief reply “come tomorrow”.  It is submitted that after few months the key of the vehicle was misplaced and the complainant requested the Ops to give him the other set of key as the vehicle remained idle but the Ops are not taking any step resulting damage to the battery of the vehicle.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the Key set and battery and to pay Rs.45, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about sale of alleged motorcycle to the complainant.  It is contended that the allegation of the complainant that the Ops handed him over one set of key and promised to give another set within a short period are false and the complainant has never made any complaint before the Ops regarding non receipt of another set of key of the vehicle.  It is further contended that the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle has received retail invoice and all compulsory accessories from the Ops including the keys and the said fact has been mentioned in the retail invoice dt.08.09.2015 issued to the complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents and the complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case.  Two separate affidavits have been filed in favour of the case of the complainant.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of Splendor Plus motorcycle by the complainant from the Ops on 08.09.2015 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that at the time of purchase, the OP.2 handed over only one set of key of the vehicle to the complainant and promised to give another set after a short period but on repeated approach to the Ops for handing over of other set of key, the Ops did not listen.  In the meantime the complainant lost the key of the vehicle and on request to give him the other set of key, the Ops misbehaved the complainant.  On the other hand the Ops through their counter stated that they have handed over 2 sets of key to the complainant at the time of sale of the vehicle and said fact has been mentioned in the retail invoice.

5.                     Perused the copy of retail invoice available on record in which Key No.2535 is mentioned and the complainant has put his signature on the retail invoice.  The retail invoice does not show about the number of keys that have been handed over to the complainant by the Ops.  Naturally at the time of sale of a vehicle two number of key are being handed over to the customers but the complainant in this case stated that the Ops handed him over only one set of key.  The said allegation of the complainant has been denied by the Ops.  In these circumstances it is not understood as to who is telling the truth.

6.                     In this case two associates of the complainant present with him at the time of purchase of the vehicle have filed two affidavits.  One Daitary Harijan and another Dambaru Gadaba of Kankadaguda village from which the complainant hails in their affidavit stated that  in their presence, the OP.2 handed over one set of key of the vehicle to the complainant with promise to handover other set of key within a short period.  The Ops have not challenged the contents of above affidavits in any manner.  As such the facts of the affidavits remained unchallenged.  In view of above facts, we come to the conclusion that the Ops have handed over only one set of Key to the complainant and now the said key  is missing for which the complainant is suffering.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get a new set of keys to be fitted in his vehicle by the Ops.  Further due to such inconvenience, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and is entitled for some compensation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complainant petition is allowed in part and Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to change the whole key system of the vehicle with a new set of keys to the satisfaction of the complainant and to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.  The above directions are to be complied by the Ops within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)