Delhi

North East

MA/5/2022

Sh. Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aman Motors - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

M.A/05/22 in Complaint Case No.231/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Amar Singh, S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh, R/o 4218, Gal Wachnalaya Arya Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Malka Ganj, Delhi 110007	Complainant
	Versus
	Aman Motors, Through its Manager, Authorized Dealer Hero Motocorp Ltd., E-2, Samrat Gali, Main Road, Near Inderprastha School, Sherpur Chowk, Khajuri Khas Extn., Delhi 110094 Also At: A-7, Kh. No. 30/2, Main Wazirabad Road, Brijpuri, Delhi 110094 (Opp. Block Bus Stand, Yamuna Vihar)	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

13.09.2022 30.05.2023 04.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had handed over his Meastro Edge Scooter for changing/repairing of main lock of the said scooter at the service centre of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party issued a receipt against the handing over of the said scooter and assured the Complainant that delivery would be made on 19.05.2017. Opposite Party told the Complainant that delivery should be taken from another service centre of the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that on repeated requests by the Complainant Opposite Party had not handed over the said scooter to the Complainant till date. Complainant stated that he visited the workshop of the Opposite Party many times for taking the delivery of the said scooter but delivery was not made by the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that Opposite Party had illegally retained the scooter of the Complainant with mala fide intention to change the original parts of the above said scooter and it may be used in crime. Thereafter, the Complainant had purchased a new scooter for his business. On 25.05.2017, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party sent the reply of the legal notice on 05.06.2017. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 69,500/- which were incurred by the Complainant for purchasing new scooter and to award costs of the present complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false. It is alleged the Complainant has concealed the material facts. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant handed over his vehicle to the Opposite Party on 19.05.2017 at about 08.30 p.m. vide job card no. 07612 dated 19.05.2017 and the delivery was to be made to the Complainant on 22.05.2017 at 06.00 p.m. The Complainant has acknowledged the said job card and due to some typographical error the date of delivery was wrongly mentioned as 19.05.2017 instead of 22.05.2017. The vehicle of the Complainant at the time of handing over to the Opposite Party was in accidental condition. The Opposite Party changed the handle lock of the vehicle and completed all the repair work in time and the Complainant was informed to take the delivery of his vehicle by clearing the dues of Rs. 1,518/-. The Complainant did not come to take the delivery of the vehicle. Then the Opposite Party sent letters dated 26.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 and requested him to take the vehicle. The Complainant never turned up to take the delivery of his vehicle. It is stated that there no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

4. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Jai Shankar Sharma, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he has handed over his two wheeler to the Opposite Party for changing its lock. The Opposite Party did not deliver his scooter to him after repair. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has illegally retained his two wheeler without any reason. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has handed over his two wheeler for changing the lock on 19.05.2017 and it had changed the lock and completed the repair work by 22.05.2017 i.e. the date when the delivery of the two wheeler was to be given to the Complainant. The case of the Opposite Party is that Complainant never turned up to take the delivery of his vehicle. In its written statement the Opposite Party has stated that on 26.05.2017 and on 29.05.2017 letters were sent to the Complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. It is important to note that the Complainant has not rebutted this assertion by not filing rejoinder to the written statement. Nor in his affidavit the Complainant has denied this fact. On the other hand the Opposite Party has filed its evidence through affidavit of Shri Jai Shankar Sharma who has stated in his affidavit that two letters were written on 26.05.2017 and 29.05.2017   whereby the Complainant was requested to take delivery of his two wheeler but the Complainant did not turned up to take delivery of his two wheeler. The Opposite Party has filed the copy of letter dated 26.05.2017 and letter dated 29.05.2017. The Opposite Party has also filed copies of courier receipt and postal receipts vide which the said letters were sent to the Complainant. Therefore, it is proved that the Complainant did not approach the Opposite Party to take delivery of his two wheeler despite receipt of the letters from the Opposite Party. It is also the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had retained his two wheeler illegally but no complaint before any Forum or Police etc. was ever made in this regard.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 04.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)