CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.211/2013
PRADEEP SINGH RAWAT
D-88, GALI NO.3,
SAURABH CIHAR,
JAITPUR ROAD,
BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI - 110044.…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- AMBE BAJAJ
A-3, MOLAR BAND EXTENSION
JAITPUR ROAD,
OPPOSITE BAJRANG HOSPITAL
BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI - 110044..…..RESPONDENT/ OP-1
- AMBE BAJAJ
HARI NAGAR EXTENSION,
JAITPUR ROAD,
OM NURSERY BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI - 110044..…..RESPONDENT/ OP-2
Date of Institution-17/04/2013
Date of Order- 07/06/2022
O R D E R
RASHMI BANSAL– Member
The present complaint is filed by the complainant against OP for his negligent and deficient services, compensation for mental harassment and litigation cost, claiming refund of the purchase price of his bike bought from OP1 and serviced by OP2 or in the alternative a new bike,
Briefly stated facts of the case are, as per complainant he purchased a 125 c.c. Bike Model Discover bearing registration number DL 3S CE 1802 on 27.05.2012 from OP1, for a sum of Rs.7 57,400 /-. It is stated by the complainant that at the time of purchase OP1 has given warranty for the timeframe of 3 free services. Complainant stated that after second free service, he has started facing problem of engine vibrations and gear-shifting at the speed limit 55–60 km/h. Upon information to OP2, the authorised service centre of OP1, he was assured that the problem would be rectified during third free service, therefore, he did not give any written complaint to OP1 or OP2. This is further submitted by complainant that he was shocked to note that after third free service the bike was completely ruined and on 05.12.2012, when the complainant was returning home from his own office, the bike could not start either by kick or self-starter button. The complainant immediately called the customer care of OP1 at their helpline and lodged his complaint. This is the allegation of the complainant that the representative of the customer care instead of lodging the complaint suggested complainant to carry his bike to the service centre. Complainant got his bike towed to service center by paying Rs.1800/- as towing charges. The complainant further alleged that when he brought the bike to the service centre of OP2, it was informed by the executive of OP2 that the valve and cylinder kit needed to be changed. Complainant further submitted that the executive of OP2 called him very next day informing that a valve should not fail in new bike and it can cause damage to the internal part of the engine and asked for the payment for the repair, to which complainant asked him not to repair the bike until he contacts with customer care cell of OP1 regarding his complaint but the service executive repaired the bike without his consent. The complainant sent an email on 08.12.2012 to the service centre seeking 1-year warranty of the engine. Notices were also sent by complainant to various authorities of the OP1 and OP2, calling them to either replace the bike with the new one as the complainant purchased the bike only five months back or in alternative give one-year warranty from the date of repair of the engine parts. The complainant states that no reply was received from the opposite parties. Aggrieved, complainant filed present complaint against OPs for their negligent and deficient service causing him physical, mental and emotional trauma.
In support of his case complainant has filed with his complaint, the copy of insurance policy of vehicle, retail invoice of free services dated 06.06.2012 and 27.07.2012, bill for towing the bike and notice sent to OP1 and OP2, however, strangely he did not mark or exhibit any of the document in his evidence by way of affidavit.
Upon notice, opposite parties chose not to appear, despite service and, as such, they were proceeded ex - parte, vide order dated 09.11.2014.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. Since OP proceeded ex – parte, we do not have benefit of OP’s version. Careful examination of the documents placed on file reveals that the complainant has not been able to establish negligence or deficiency in services on the part of OP in any manner. The complainant has relied upon various e-mails and letters sent to OP regarding non-functioning/ working of his motorcycle, however, except for these e-mails and letters, there is no document placed by the complainant to establish the negligence or deficient services on the part of OP. The complainant has also alleged that after 3rd service by OP, his motorcycle was ruined however, this is a technical issue and no direct/ indirect evidence/ document has been filed by the complainant to prove this point. The complainant has also not placed on record any investigation report or examination done by any expert with respect to any manufacturing defect or that the motorcycle was ruined after third service. The complainant also did not establish that his bike is lying with OP2 it was simply a verbal averment without substantiated in terms of any documentary evidence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SGS India Limited V/S Dolphin International Limited” Civil appeal No. 5759/2009 decided on 06/10/2021, has held that, “The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the complaint is vague with regard to the averments made therein as to deficiency in service. Moreover, the complainant has not discharged the onus of proving deficiency in service. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases. The order be uploaded on the website www.confonet.nic.in.
The order contains 4 pages and bears my signature on each page.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
